Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_




[Illustration: WADE HAMPTON, 1889

“The diffusion of the Negroes? It would deprive us of much of our labor
and make it a little harder for the present generation, but it would be
the salvation of the future.”]




  THE
  SLAVE TRADE

  _Slavery and Color_

  BY
  THEODORE D. JERVEY


  COLUMBIA, S. C.
  THE STATE COMPANY
  1925




  COPYRIGHT 1925
  THE STATE COMPANY




TO

A. S. SALLEY, JR.

_Secretary of the Historical Commission of South Carolina_


whose friendship has stood the test of time and whose exact knowledge,
those standing high among the scholars of American history have
recognized, this book is dedicated.




INTRODUCTORY


The following pages, from which an excerpt was published in 1913, under
the title—The Railroad The Conqueror—constitute an attempt to put
within short compass the main causes of the shifting sectionalism of
the people of the United States.

The facts and assertions upon which this sketch is based have, with
others not included, been gathered and pondered for at least sixteen
years, during which period, much at times interwoven, has, from time
to time been cut, for fear that consideration of such might lead the
thoughts of the possible reader away from the main theme.

As to the workmanship few can see more clearly than the author,
how much better that could have been, had he who undertook it been
accommodated with more leisure and equipped with scholarship and
means. Yet it is doubtful if any one could have approached the task
and pursued it through the years which have intervened between its
inception and completion with a firmer determination to present the
truth and nothing but the truth, as the writer saw and still sees it.

To publish what is herein set out, in this day of rampant commercialism
and often unconscious intolerance, requires character and courage in a
publisher.

On the other hand, submission to some, holding themselves out as
publishers and soliciting manuscripts, involves occasional risk, and in
this connection, the author feels that he would be lacking in ordinary
gratitude, did he not record the rescue of this manuscript, in an
earlier form, from the clutch of a publishing house, which having
obtained it on solicitation, for perusal and consideration, on terms
declined, held it for a year, in spite of repeated requests for its
return, replied to repeatedly, with untruthful assertions that it had
been sent back. Without any knowledge of or interest in the contents, a
stranger, to whose inquiries concerning local history, the author, from
time to time had replied, C. W. Lewis, Esq., residing in the vicinity
of the disreputable publishing house, upon request, by a personal call,
forced the delivery of the manuscript and returned it to the author.
Now complete it is submitted to the public without further comment to
speak for itself.




THE SLAVE TRADE

_Slavery and Color_




CHAPTER I


In consideration of much that appears in the numerous contributions to
the discussion of the Negro Question, it must be noticeable that in
recent years, there has been quite a broadening of the field, and that,
from what was in the past, mainly a question of slavery or freedom, for
one particular class of people, in one great country, we have advanced
to a consideration of what may effect the entire world in that, which
has been entitled by some: “The Conflict of Color,” and by others not
quite so pessimistic: “The Question of the Twentieth Century, the
Question of Color.”

In such circumstances, an examination of the evolution of this question
and a recital of some of the phases under which it has been brought up
for discussion in the history of the United States, may tend to correct
some misapprehensions and throw some additional light upon a subject,
which, in spite of the efforts to suppress it, is continually forcing
itself upon the attention of the world.

While freely admitting the impossibility of discussing this subject,
within any reasonable limits, without necessarily omitting mention
of many publications, containing an amount of extremely valuable
information, the aim of this work will be to trace the evolution of
the question as it has appeared, in the expression of both whites
and Negroes, in that country in which public opinion is said to
exercise the greatest influence upon government. In undertaking such
an examination it would be hardly necessary to make any very close
scrutiny of the Colonial period, from the fact that while there was
opinion that found expression in acts, statements and laws, the
colonies, being under the control of Great Britain, were subjected to
her policies and representative of her civilization. The extraordinary
case therefore of a Massachusetts slave-owner, Maverick, who simply
for breeding purposes, in 1636, forced an African woman of high rank,
owned by him, to accept the embraces of a common young Negro[1] was but
a way of expressing contempt for the race. The Maryland Act of 1663,
a far less coarse expression, involved all white women who failed to
entertain it. In Stroud’s “Sketch of the laws of Slavery,” published in
1827, we find on page 2:

 “Section 2. And forasmuch as divers free born English women forgetful
 of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation do
 intermarry with Negro slaves” such “free born women ... shall serve
 the master of such slave during the life of her husband and all the
 issue of such free born women, so married shall be slaves as their
 fathers were.”

Yet despite these two striking illustrations at these early dates,
broadly speaking, we might claim that in British America “up to 1700
and perhaps beyond, the sentiment North and South concerning the
Negro or his enslavement differed but slightly; for while the South
Carolina Act of 1690 did provide severe regulations for Negro and
Indian slaves, a study of the statutes from 1698”[2] “and later of the
press, indicates a sentiment against the importation of Negroes, which
however was forced upon that province, as upon others, by the British
Government.”[3]

The Revolutionary war, which shook off this controlling force,
associated the States together, under the Articles of Confederation,
thus paving the way for that great experiment, the Constitutional
Federal Republic, which succeeded it.

It was in the deliberations of the great Convention, which framed that
“more perfect union”, that the Negro question really first arose, as a
matter of vital political concern; nor among all the questions which
confronted that extraordinary body, did there appear a graver one, than
that affecting the status of the colored people of the Union.

This class represented, at that time, about one-fifth of the population
of the thirteen States, which it was the aim to unite, or 737,208
blacks as against 3,172,006 whites[4], and while of these 737,208
colored persons some 59,527 were free, in every one of the thirteen
States, except Massachusetts, there were slaves, and in only one State,
outside of New England, Pennsylvania, were free persons of color more
numerous than slaves.

In eight of the thirteen States the Negro slaves greatly outnumbered
the free persons of color; while in still another, with a total of
5,572 colored persons, the colored freedmen exceeded the slaves by only
54.

Under these conditions, it was not unnatural that the question should
have presented itself as one of slavery versus freedom, rather than
Negroes versus whites, and for the seventy years in which slavery
continued to exist, that fact served to obscure, to quite an extent,
the appreciation of the distinct question of color and race. Yet by
some, at an exceedingly early date, it was recognized, that apart from
the consideration of how they might be held, the mere presence in the
Republic of a large and growing number of people of an inferior race,
presented a serious problem.

When the consideration of the basis upon which Federal representation
should rest, and direct taxes be apportioned, was reached, the framers
of the Constitution found themselves, therefore, confronted with a
political question of the first magnitude, in the existence of the
slave trade.

What was the slave? A man or a chattel?

The question was precipitated by a clause in the report of the
committee of detail, presented by John Rutledge, of South Carolina,
Article 7, Section 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.”[5]

In the light of what followed, of the existing legislation upon that
subject in the State of South Carolina, and the history of the province
and State, the introduction of the concluding clause of this section
by her most distinguished representative was unfortunate. It gave rise
to declarations concerning the State which not only do not seem to have
been absolutely borne out by the facts; but which the actions and votes
of her deputies themselves, to some extent stultified; yet the State
was nevertheless stamped with an unenviable precedence in a matter in
which she cast but one of the seven votes, in a total of eleven, by
which the final decision was arrived at.

In the discussion which immediately arose upon the introduction of the
report, four views with regard to this clause found expression.

Luther Martin, of Maryland, a Representative from a State, which, as
will subsequently be shown, could have then been described as the most
complete slave State of the thirteen, had nevertheless the discernment
to realize the dangers of such a condition, and proposed to alter
the section, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation
of slaves. He presented three grounds of objection to the denial
of such: “1. As five slaves are to be counted as three free-men in
the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an
encouragement of the 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 features in the Constitution.”

In defending the clause Mr. Rutledge was not conciliatory. He “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 their obligations to protect the Southern
States against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with the
question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations.
The true question at present is whether the Southern 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 consumers.”

Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut supported the clause in an argument
pitched upon the same utilitarian plane, but strengthened with what
was an assertion of the doctrine of States rights. He “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 interests. 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. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, while upholding the view of
Mr. Rutledge, held out a hope of subsequent accord. He said “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 and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation
of Negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on the subject, South
Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as
Virginia and Maryland have already done.”[6]

Upon the following day the discussion was resumed.

Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, “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 and as it was expedient to have as few objections as
possible to the proposed scheme of Government, thought it best to leave
the matter as we found it. He observed that the abolition of slavery
seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of
the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged upon
the Convention the necessity of dispatching its business.”

Col. Mason, of Virginia, took very high ground. He declared: “This
infernal traffic originated in the avarice of the British merchants.
The British Government 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 and slaves in case
other means of obtaining submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia,
he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly.
North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be vain,
if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western
people are already calling out for slaves in their new lands, and
will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South
Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the
immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They
produce the most pernicious effect on morals. Every master of slaves is
born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country.
As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must
be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects Providence
punishes national sins by 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 General
Government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.”

Mr. Ellsworth spoke again, and quite to the point: “As he had never
owned a slave, could not judge of the effect of slavery on character.
He said, however, that if it was to be considered in a moral light, we
ought to go further and free those already in the country. As slaves
also multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland that it is cheaper to
raise than import them, whilst in the sickly swamps foreign supplies
are necessary. If we go no further than is urged we shall be unjust
to South Carolina and 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 made 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. Charles Pinckney said: “If slavery be wrong it is justified by
the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and
other States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other
modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the
Southern States were left alone they will probably of themselves stop
importation. He would himself, as a citizen of South 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.”

Gen. C. C. Pinckney “declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself
and all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their
personal influence it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent
of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without
slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the importations.
Her slaves will rise in value and she has more than she wants. It
would be unequal to require South Carolina and Georgia to confederate
on such unequal terms. He said the royal assent before the Revolution
had never been refused to South 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 South Carolina from the Union.”

Mr. Baldwin, of Georgia, “had conceived national objects 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 General Government to be the pursuit of the
central States who wished to have a vortex for everything—that her
distance would preclude her from equal advantage—and 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 her
favorite prerogative. 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 carried
their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity
to the claims of the whole animal creation.”

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, “observed that if South Carolina and
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, of Massachusetts, “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, of Delaware, “considered it as inadmissible on every
principle of honor and 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 the question ought to be left to the National
Government, not to the States particularly interested. If England and
France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time excluded from both
these kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He
could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate
on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to
be immediately exercised by the General Government.”

Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, “stated the law of North Carolina on
the subject, to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation
of slaves. It imposed a duty of five pounds on each slave imported from
Africa. Ten pounds on each from elsewhere, and fifty pounds on each
from a State licensing manumission. He thought the Southern States
could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected, and
that it was wrong to force anything down not absolutely necessary and
which any State must disagree to.”

Mr. King, of Massachusetts, “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 and equal opposition would be experienced from
the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty,
while every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that
could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and
Middle States.”

Mr. Langdon, of New Hampshire, “was strenuous for giving the power to
the General Government. He could not with a good conscience leave it
with the States who could then go on with the traffic, without being
restrained by the opinion here given that they will themselves cease to
import slaves.”

Gen. Pinckney, “thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did
not think South Carolina would stop her importation 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, and which would remove one
difficulty that had been started.”

Mr. Rutledge remarked: “If the Convention thinks that North Carolina,
South Carolina and Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their
right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The
people of these States will never be such fools as to give up so
important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the
section and seconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.”

Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, “wished the whole subject to be
committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports, and on a
Navigation Act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and
Southern States.”

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, declared, “that he would never agree to
the power of taxing exports.”

Mr. Sherman said: “It was better to let the Southern 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 General
Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty
to exercise the power.”

Mr. Reed, of Delaware, “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 and
therefore could not be committed.”

Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, “was for committing in order that some
middle ground, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the
clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt
on the dilemma to which the Constitution was exposed by agreeing to
the clause it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists and many others
in the States 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.”[7]

On the question of committing, the vote was: New Hampshire, no;
Massachusetts, abstaining from voting; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey,
aye; Pennsylvania, no; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye;
North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye; Georgia, aye;[8] In a total
of eleven States at Convention seven ayes, three noes, one not voting.

The clause having been referred to a committee consisting of Messrs.
Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin,
Madison, Williamson, C. C. Pinckney, and Baldwin, the committee
reported in favor of the clause, with an amendment making it read: “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 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of
the duties laid on imports.”[9]

Gen. Pinckney moved to strike out the words “the year 1800 and to
insert the words eighteen hundred and eight.”

Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, seconded the motion. This action brought
from one, who up to that time does not appear to have participated in
the discussion, Mr. Madison, the declaration that: “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.”[10]

The reported clause had been referred to the committee against the vote
of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Virginia and New Jersey
both opposed the amendment; but as it received the vote of both New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, which had not voted for the commitment, it
was supported by seven out of the eleven States, the three New England
States present and four of the five Southern States, the three Middle
States present, and one Southern State, opposing.

While reasonable men must always be alive to the necessity of
compromise, and while also the great responsibilities of the situation
concerning this matter are apparent, yet this most important discussion
and vote establishes some facts, with regard to the constitutional
Union, which the honest historian cannot disregard.

First: The migration or importation of Negroes was prohibited in spite
of the declaration of the representatives of the three Southern States,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, that some of the Southern
States could not accept the Constitution if it did.

Second: A tax upon the importation was imposed through the aid of the
vote of New England, whose representatives had warned the Convention
that it would be a recognition of slavery to tax importation. The
claim, therefore made, that South Carolina and Georgia forced the
recognition of the slave trade is not borne out by the facts in the
case. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia followed the suggestion of
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, and, abandoning the principles for
which they had contended, “formed a bargain” by which the slave trade
was surrendered for the recognition of slavery by the Constitution.

Upon considering the discussion, although Ellsworth’s shrewd criticism
crippled, to some extent, the lofty flight of Mason of Virginia, yet
the speech of the latter puts him upon a higher plane of statesmanship
than that occupied by any deputy present. On the other hand, no matter
how high their reputations otherwise may have been established, none
descended to so low a plane as King, of Massachusetts and Rutledge of
South Carolina; while no individual exhibited as much ignorance of the
existing situation as he, who by the temperance of his utterance and
the influence of his high personal character, most thoroughly mastered
it.

Gen. C. C. Pinckney did not seem to know that South Carolina had not
been permitted by Great Britain to throw off the slave trade, when,
as a province, she sought to do so,[11] or that the sentiment of the
people of his State, even while he was speaking, had found expression
in an Act which prohibited the bringing into the State of “any Negro
slave contrary to the Act to regulate the recovery of debts and
prohibiting the importation of Negroes”[12] and which was sufficiently
strong even after the above compromise to negative, by a vote of 93
to 40, Gillon’s attempt in the South Carolina Legislature in 1788, to
repeal the law prohibiting importation.[13] No severer criticism of
the General’s statesmanship on this point was ever promulgated than
that, thirty-four years later, which his devoted brother, Gen. Thomas
Pinckney, furnished, in some reflections, published by him[14] without
any thought of how positively they ran counter to the dictum of his
brother—“South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves”—he warned
South Carolinians that Negro artisans were taking the places of whites.

But, turning from this discussion, it is of importance to consider just
how the Negro population of the United States was located at the time
of the adoption of the Constitution.

By the census taken in 1790 it was indicated that about six-sevenths of
the entire colored population of the thirteen States constituting the
Union, inhabited the four States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
and South Carolina, of which about one-half were found in Virginia, the
population in the order of their numbers being as follows: Virginia
305,493; Maryland 111,099; South Carolina, 108,895; North Carolina,
105,547. The Negro population of Georgia at that date was but slightly
in excess of the Negro population of New York, being only 29,662 to New
York’s 25,978, while in the region north of Maryland there were nearly
three times as many Negroes as in the region south of South Carolina.

Considering the percentage of blacks to whites in the different
sections, South Carolina had the greatest, with a colored population
rising as high as 44 per cent of the total. Virginia came second, with
a percentage of 41, Georgia was third, with 36; Maryland fourth, with
35; North Carolina fifth, with 27; Delaware sixth, with 26; New Jersey
seventh, with 9; New York eighth, with 8; Rhode Island ninth, with 7,
and Pennsylvania tenth, with less than three per cent.

There is still another standpoint, however, from which this population
might be considered; that is with regard to the area of the State
containing the same, and considered in this light, Maryland, with a
Negro population in excess of that of South Carolina, and with an area
of only one-third, was the most distinct Negro State of the Union.
Delaware came second, and Virginia third. In the two States of Maryland
and Virginia, with a combined area of 79,124 square miles, there was
considerably more than one-half of the colored population of the United
States, 416,572. In the region to the south, embracing the three States
of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, with an area of 143,040
square miles, there were as yet but 244,104 Negroes, or about one-third
of the number, considered with regard to the area they inhabited, which
makes very obvious the contention of Ellsworth that the abrogation of
the slave trade would have operated as a distinct commercial benefit to
Maryland and Virginia, enabling them to supply to the region south of
them, at enhanced prices, the slaves they might raise for market.

Virginia, Maryland and Delaware then constituted at this time the black
belt, containing, as they did, four-sevenths of the colored population
of the Union, three-fourths of the remainder being in the region below
and one-fourth above.

In the first decade of the Constitution the density of this colored
population in Virginia and Maryland was actually increased; while,
at the same time, through an extraordinary accession to her white
population, in spite of great gains to the colored, South Carolina’s
colored percentage decreased, and it is on this account that what
happened in the next decade of the Constitution in South Carolina is
of so much importance. A consideration of these events will show, that,
in spite of the declaration of her great deputies, that “South Carolina
could not do without slaves,” and that her people “would never be
such fools as to give up so important an interest” as “their right to
import slaves,” they not only proposed to give up the right, but strove
earnestly to do so, and only after thirty years of unavailing effort,
accompanied by an ever increasing investment in that class of property,
did the strong minority, which had opposed it, acquiesce in Calhoun’s
most unwise view, that the blacks furnished “the best substratum of
population, upon which great and flourishing Commonwealths may be most
easily and safely reared.”[15]

Once it was accepted, the march was steadily on to disaster.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Phillips, American Negro Slavery, p. 361.

[2] Statutes of S. C., Vols. 2 & 7, pp. 153, 367, 370.

[3] S. C. Gazette, Feb. 26, 1732, McCrady, S. C. under the Royal
Government, p. 378.

[4] Compendium of the Ninth Census of the United States, p. 13.

[5] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, p. 183.

[6] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, p. 364.

[7] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, pp. 369, 374.

[8] Ibid. p. 374.

[9] Ibid. p. 400.

Prof. Farrand renders “abst” absent, which the context contradicts.
King of Massachusetts, was put on the committee.

[10] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, p. 415.

[11] S. C. Gazette, Feb. 19, 1732, Stat. S. C. Vol. 7, pp. 367-370.
McCrady, S. C. Under the Royal Government, p. 378.

[12] Stat. S. C. Vol. 7, p. 430.

[13] State Gazette, Jan. 28, 1788.

[14] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, p. 130.

[15] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 369.




CHAPTER II


Following Gillon’s unsuccessful attempt in 1788, to repeal the existing
law, the State of South Carolina, by successive enactments, in spite
of the implied sanction of the Constitution until 1808, prohibited the
importation of slaves[16] up to the year 1803. In that year Governor
James B. Richardson, in his annual message to the General Assembly,
indirectly suggested the repeal of such legislation.

The language of this message is so involved that, considered without
reference to its effect, it seems to indicate some sympathy with
the prohibition of the importation; but carefully considered, the
secret sympathy of this official with those he condemns is obvious.
The promptness with which it was seized upon by the opponents of
prohibition, and the arguments culled from it, indicate that it was the
opening wedge by which the defence against the black flood, was split,
to admit it in such volume, as to make subsequent efforts to stop the
flow almost useless.

That portion of the message which dealt with the importation of Negro
slaves reads as follows:

“All possible diligence and my best efforts have been used to carry
effectually into operation the law prohibiting the importation of
Negroes into the State, but it is with concern that I have here to
state to you, that it has been without success; whether it must be
attributed principally to the ill consequences that are apprehended
would result from carrying the law into operation by emancipating
the Negroes so brought in (a remedy deemed more mischievous than the
evil of their introduction in servitude) or whether the interests of
the citizens is so interwoven with that species of property, that it
prevents their aiding the law in answering the salutary purposes,
I will not presume to determine; but I am inclined to believe both
causes operate as preventatives; for those people are continued to be
brought into the State beyond the possibility of prevention. In all
laws intended for the general benefit, they should be so calculated
that their operation should be found equal in every part of the State;
where this is not the case it means that there is some radical defect
therein, or it is inimical to the interest of the citizens; with this
law such is the situation; for in the present state of things, the
citizens in the frontier and sea coast districts do accumulate this
property without the possibility of being detected, while those of the
interior and middle districts only experience the operation of that law
from their remote situation, etc.... This indeed is a circumstance to
be lamented, but such is the true state of our situation and therefore
becomes a subject worthy of your consideration and one that I trust
will engage your endeavors to render equally energetic in every part of
the State that law which experience has proved partial in its operation
and is oppressive upon such citizens in the interior districts as hold
it the object of desire to augment their capital in the accumulation of
such property.”[17]

This expression of opinion from the Governor brought up in the House
the appointment of “a committee to inquire whether any and what
amendments are necessary, to the Act entitled, ‘An Act to prevent Negro
slaves from being brought into or entering this State’[18]; in the
Senate a bill to permit their importation.”[19]

The leading opponent in the Senate of the bill to permit importation
was State Senator Robert Barnwell, at that time in his forty-second
year. He had served with credit in the Revolutionary war, in the
course of which he had been seriously wounded; had been a delegate
to the Continental Congress; and later a member of Congress from the
2nd Congressional district of South Carolina, later still he had been
elected Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives.[20]
He is described by Edward Hooker as “a tall, portly, well-built man
of about sixty years—a man of singular gravity, and possessed of
great influence in the Senate. Said to be an eminent orator and very
religious character.”[21]

A synopsis of Mr. Barnwell’s remarks on this occasion has been
preserved, although, as became more and more the custom with regard
to all utterances concerning slavery, in any way critical, much was
suppressed. The account reads as follows: “He maintained that by the
immense influx of these persons into the State, the value of this
species of property would be considerably diminished, insomuch that
he did believe Negroes would be soon not worth one half of what they
might be sold for. The value of the produce raised by their labor would
be in like manner depreciated. * * * The permission given by the bill
would lead to ruinous speculation. Everyone would purchase Negroes.
It was well known that those who dealt in this property would sell
it at a very long credit. Our citizens would purchase at all hazards
and trust to fortunate crops and favorable markets for making their
payments and it would be found that South Carolina would in a few
years, if this trade continued open, be in the same situation of debt,
and subject to all the misfortunes which that situation had produced
as at the conclusion of the Revolutionary war. The honorable member
adduced in support of his opinion other arguments still more cogent
and impressive, which from reasons very obvious, we decline making
public.”[22]

The most prominent advocate of the bill was State Senator William
Smith, the schoolmate of Andrew Jackson, later judge, and, later still,
United States Senator, the most determined of Calhoun’s political
opponents in after years. He was a native of North Carolina, of
somewhat indefinite age, a reformed drunkard; but a man of firmness and
power, and also of pleasing appearance.[23]

The report of his remarks upon this occasion is brevity itself, but
sufficient to condemn him, as it is apparent that in a spirit of
pessimism he voted against his convictions. The report is: “Mr. Smith
said he would agree to put a stop to the importation of Negroes but he
believed it to be impossible. For this reason he would vote for the
bill.”[24] The House had meantime reported that “the laws prohibiting
the importation of Negroes can be so amended as to prevent their
introduction among us,” but a strong faction were for action on the
Senate bill. “Mr. Drayton was of the opinion that the committee should
proceed to consider the bill from the Senate rather than the report
of the committee of this House. He confessed that he was a friend to
that bill in its utmost latitude. Many of the planters had cash which
they could not so well dispose of as in purchasing Negroes, and he did
not see why they should not be allowed to improve their estates in the
best manner they were able, as well as merchants or any other class of
persons.”[25]

The House was not, however, swayed from its course. It proceeded
to consider the report of the committee, and a bill in accordance
therewith was arranged to be brought before the House on the 12th. On
that date, upon a motion to postpone the second reading to February
1, 1804, the same was lost by a vote of 41 to 63; and upon the
following day the bill from the Senate came up, and, by a vote of 55
to 46, became a law.[26] With the majority appears only one great
name, Langdon Cheves. With the minority is recorded the name of a new
member, Joseph Alston, destined to something of a career, who on this
occasion, in opposition to the bill permitting importation, made a
notable speech.[27]

From the achievement of her independence in 1783, South Carolina
had legislated against the importation of Negro slaves with greater
and greater severity. The indications are all that this reversal of
her past policy was the result of the matter having been sprung as
a surprise by Governor Richardson in the second year of his term of
office, when the Senate was two to one in favor of such action as he
suggested, and even in the more popular branch of the Legislature
a majority of nine in one hundred and one votes could be secured.
Under these conditions, that a strong effort should have been at
once inaugurated by those who opposed the importation, to repeal the
Act permitting same was natural, and, upon the reassembling of the
Legislature in the fall of 1804, a bill having such for its purpose
was introduced, pressed to a vote in the Senate, and lost by only one
vote, the record being 16 for, 17 against repeal of Act permitting
importation, and two absent.[28]

Four days later the House went into committee on the following
resolution: “Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, it is
inexpedient and impolitic to permit the importation of slaves into this
State, and that a committee of five be appointed to bring in a bill for
that purpose.”[29] The resolution was adopted by a vote of 69 to 39,
and among the names of the majority appears that of William Lowndes.
Thus the two Houses being unable to agree before adjournment, it was to
be inferred, from the heavy majority in the House, against importation
and the extremely narrow margin by which it had been sustained in
the Senate, the fight would again be made, at the convening of
the Legislature, in the fall of 1805. And so it was, for upon its
reassembling Governor Paul Hamilton at once and pointedly referred
to the subject in his message: “I should be wanting in my endeavors
towards the public good were I to omit soliciting you to legislate on
the importation of slaves. Abstractedly from other considerations of
it, on which indeed much may be said, I feel myself bound to represent
its continuance as productive of effects the most injurious, in
draining us of our specie, thereby embarrassing our commercial men
and naturally lessening the sales of our produce; that viewed with
reference to population it increases our weakness not our strength;
for it must be admitted that in proportion as you add to the number
of slaves, you prevent the influx of those men who would increase the
means of defence and security. I will add, that an immediate stop to
this traffic is, in my judgment, on every principle of sound policy,
indispensable.”[30]

The message at once engaged the attention of the newly elected House,
to the Speakership of which Joseph Alston had been elected. The young
Speaker was a most interesting personality. His father, with perhaps
one exception, was the largest slave-owner in the State, and of the
latter, we are informed, that “in his opinion the true interests of
the planter were in exact accord with the dictates of an enlightened
humanity. The consequence was that his numerous plantations were models
of neatness and order and his slaves always exhibited an appearance of
health and comfort, which spoke well for their treatment.”[31]

This election to the Speakership was the beginning of a political
career for Joseph Alston, which soon led to the Governorship and might
well have extended into national fields, had it not been for the
tragedy which cut it short. He had just married Theodosia Burr, the
fascinating and accomplished daughter of Aaron Burr. But the death of
his only son in 1812 and almost immediately after, the loss of his wife
at sea, seemed literally to destroy all his interest in life and take
it from him. This debate in 1805, in which he was the foremost figure,
is alluded to in the diary of Edward Hooker, by whom we are informed
that the principle speakers in the House were Simons, Alston, Miles,
Taylor and Wright. The resolution under consideration, as drawn up by
Joseph Alston, was prefaced with several considerations, such as the
inconsistency of the slave trade with the precepts of Christianity—with
justice, humanity, etc., and later with the true interests of
the State. In the argument of Mr. Miles, of Richland, appear the
extraordinary insinuations of Governor Richardson, as to the injustice
of the law with regard to those who found it difficult to violate it,
and whom it did prohibit from importing slaves. Of the members of
the House and Senate who sufficiently struck the attention of Hooker
to draw from him something like a pen portrait, Barnwell, Lowndes
and Alston stand out the clearest. He estimated Alston to be about
twenty-eight years of age. He was not quite twenty-seven. He describes
him thus: “Mr. Alston is a short man and rather thick. Of a dark
complexion, with thick black hair and a formidable pair of whiskers,
that cover a great part of his face, and nearly meet at the chin. His
dress and demeanor are well deserving the name buckish. When not in
the legislative hall, he may be seen as often as anywhere, about the
stables, looking at fine horses, dressed in a short jockey-like surtout
or frock, and laced and tossled boots, with a segar in his mouth, and
much more of the ‘gig and tandem’ levity than the austere virtues of a
senatorial leader. Indeed he is one of the last persons that I should
have picked out from the crowd of people in town for a president of one
branch of the Legislature.”

Of the speech he says: “Alston’s speech appears to me more like an
extemporaneous one, though it is said by such as are acquainted with
him that he always, without exception, writes his speeches. He like
Simons, used notes, but did not recur to them so often; nor did he
confine himself so much to method, nor avoid so scrupulously every
expression not stamped with elegance, yet his arrangement was not bad,
nor his language undignified. He did not at first speak with uncommon
fluency, indeed he stammered a little, but when he became once fairly
engaged his words appeared to flow with great ease. His figures
and allusions were eminently striking and beautiful, and his speech
abounded with them. He dropped some excellent moral and political
sentiments, quoted two or three texts of sublime morality from the
Scriptures, and with great vehemence and apparent sincerity urged the
House to consult the dictates of justice and humanity, in opposition
to sordid interest. His manner of delivery was extremely good and
his gestures forcible and expressive. He labored some time, and with
success, to show that the increase of slaves tends to destroy that
equality which is the basis of our republican institutions and insists
that it is not only unjust to bring them in, but demonstrably injurious
to the real interests of the State. In his argument was a fund of good
sense and useful information. The utmost silence pervaded the House
while he spoke thirty-five or forty minutes.”[32]

The resolution was adopted, and the bill prohibiting importation was
sent to the Senate by a vote of 56 to 28.[33]

Later, by the same pen, we have a brief description of the last speech
upon this bill of that Senator, who in opposition to it, may be said to
have cast the most important vote he was ever called upon to give.

Allusion has been before made to the brief reason given by Senator
William Smith for his vote, for opening the ports to importation of
slaves, which he declared himself not in favor of, but thought it
impossible to prevent, in 1803, when he, constituting one of the
majority of two to one in that branch of the General Assembly, voted to
open them. Public opinion had swept away that great majority, and from
the House, with just such a vote, two to one, the bill to prohibit came
to the Senate. The following is Hooker’s description of the situation,
and the part played by Smith:

“The bill having passed the lower House, the public feeling is excited
about its event here. Mr. Smith, a lawyer from York District, made a
long and rather tedious speech against it. He is not fluent, nor does
he use the handsomest language, but in the course of his argument gets
out considerable that is to the purpose.”[34]

Smith’s vote was sufficient to kill the bill. It failed of passage by
15 to 16 in the Senate.[35] He thus, by his vote alone made impossible,
what he claimed to favor, but declined to support, because he asserted
he believed to be impossible. Later in the United States Senate he
disclosed, that in the four years he thus secured for the slave trade
to pour its flood upon South Carolina, in 202 vessels, 39,075 slaves
were brought into the port of Charleston[36] for which he had the
effrontery to hold almost everybody but himself responsible. This
disastrous piece of legislation increased the Negro population of South
Carolina in that decade 41 per cent, against an increase of only 9
per cent whites, and checked almost entirely the remarkable increase
of whites, which had marked the previous decade. As to the effect
upon the business of Charleston, in the reminiscence of one of the
editors of the daily press, we have an illuminating illustration of the
truth of Senator Barnwell’s prophecy. Says Mr. Thomas: “In November
1803, I returned from my fourth voyage with a printed catalogue of
fifty thousand volumes of books in every branch of literature, arts
and sciences, being by far the largest importation ever made into the
United States. I had only got them opened and arranged for sale three
days when news arrived from Columbia that the Legislature then in
session had opened the port for the importation of slaves from Africa.
The news had not been five hours in the city before two large British
Guineamen that had been laying off and on the port for several days,
expecting it, came up to town, and from that day my business began to
decline, although then in a situation to carry it on to three times the
extent I had ever done before. Previous to this the planters had large
sums of money laying idle in the banks, which they liberally expended
not only for their actual, but supposed wants. A great change at once
took place in everything. Vessels were fitted out in numbers for the
coast of Africa, and as fast as they returned their cargoes were bought
up with avidity, not only consuming the large funds which had been
accumulating, but all that could be procured, and finally exhausting
credit and mortgaging the slaves for payment, many of whom were not
redeemed for ten years afterwards to my knowledge.”[37]

On the other hand the State of Ohio, which had been admitted in 1800
with 45,628 whites and only 336 colored, was so disturbed by the
growth of its colored population that before they reached in number
two thousand, that State passed the notorious Black Laws of January 9,
1805, of which Section 4 reads as follows: “That no black or mulatto
person shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn or give evidence in
any Court of record or elsewhere in the State in any cause depending
or matter of controversy, where either party to the same is a white
person, or in any prosecution which shall be instituted in behalf of
this State against any white person.”[38]

While South Carolina did not permit the full sweep of such in her
Courts,[39] holding a free person of color born of a free white woman
an admissible witness yet, with such legislation in Ohio, and Indiana,
it is not surprising, Fiske, of New York, six years later failed to
establish his contention that “color was a mere matter of accident *
* * All men were born free and equal”; and that his attempt to reject
the Senate amendment to the Orleans bill, i. e. the insertion of the
word “white” before the words “free male inhabitants,” in defining the
electorate, should have been brushed aside by Sheffey, of Virginia,
with the simple declaration that “such doctrines would prostrate the
civil institutions of Virginia.”[40] It was one thing to protest as
Col. Mason did against the slave trade; but, with some four hundred
thousand slaves, double what any other State possessed, Virginia was
prepared to contend for her property rights, and the position seems to
have been met with acquiescence by Congress.


FOOTNOTES:

[16] Stat. S. C. Vol. 7 pp. 431-448.

[17] _Charleston Courier_, December 5, 1803.

[18] Ibid. December 6, 1803.

[19] Ibid. December 13, 1803.

[20] S. C. Hist. & Genealog. Mag. Vol. 2, p. 72.

[21] Annual Report American Hist. Ass. 1896, Vol. 1, p. 870.

[22] _Charleston Courier_, December 26, 1803.

[23] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 148.

[24] _Charleston Courier_, December 26, 1803.

[25] Ibid. January 2, 1804.

[26] _City Gazette and Daily Advertiser_, December 21, 1803.

[27] Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Vol. 2, p. 270.

[28] _Charleston Courier_, December 12, 1804.

[29] Ibid. December 24, 1804.

[30] _Charleston Courier_, December 2, 1805.

[31] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 534.

[32] Annual Report American Hist. Assn. 1896, Vol. 1, p. 868.

[33] _Charleston Courier_, December 13, 1805.

[34] Annual Report American Hist. Assn. Vol. 1, p. 878, 1896.

[35] _Charleston Courier_, December 9, 1805.

[36] Charleston Year Book, 1880, p. 263.

[37] Thomas’s Reminiscences, Case Tiffany & Burnham, Vol. 2, p. 35.

[38] C. L. Martzolff, Ohio University, Nov. 30, 1909.

[39] S. C. Reports, Brevard, Vol. 2, p. 145. _State vs. McDowell._

[40] _Charleston Courier_, February 27, 1811.




CHAPTER III


Concerning free persons of color in the United States, of whom
there were about 210,000, to 1,550,000 Negro slaves, in 1816, it
was asserted, in the petition of the Kentucky Abolition Society to
Congress, which asked that a suitable territory should be set apart as
asylum for emancipated Negroes and mulattoes, “that when emancipated
they were not allowed the privileges of free citizens and were
prohibited from emigrating to other States and Territories.”[41]

Certainly if their testimony could only be received in courts of
justice in cases, when not in opposition to the interests of the
whites, which was the situation in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, their
ability to protect themselves against injury from whites was seriously
affected, but, at the same time, that this tiny stream, trickling into
Ohio, was thus harshly dammed, the Negroes were pouring into South
Carolina in such numbers, that legislation against their introduction
from other States and Territories was passed.[42]

But again the same desire for ephemeral benefits to a class, which had
sufficed to overthrow a wise law in 1803, induced action for repeal
in 1818, and, with lamentable lack of foresight, the brilliant George
McDuffie led the fight for the repeal of the law of 1816.

By the census of 1810, the colored population of South Carolina was
200,919, the white only 214,196.

With the exception of Louisiana, just admitted, with a colored
population of 42,245, and a white population of 34,311, no State in the
Union had, proportionately to its white, as great a Negro population
as South Carolina. The increase of its colored population had been so
accelerated by the mischievous action of Governor Richardson and his
supporters in 1803, as to have increased almost two and a half times
as much as that of Maryland, the Negro population of which, as has
been before pointed out, was greater than that of South Carolina in
1790, and had increased from that day to 1800 in a greater proportion
compared to its white population, than South Carolina.

It is true the increase of the colored population of North Carolina had
also been very great; but, at the same time, the increase of the white
population had been much greater than in South Carolina, and it had had
originally so much larger a number of white inhabitants that they were
still more than double the number of blacks.

To a large and important portion of South Carolina’s legislators,
therefore, the evil of this continual increase of the Negro population
was apparent, and these under the leadership of Robert Y. Hayne, at
that time Speaker of the House, opposed the repeal of the law of 1816.

Unfortunately no Hooker was present to record his impressions of the
discussion, and all that we know of this great struggle is, that the
Act of 1816 was repealed after “one of the most eloquent and animated
debates that has taken place on the floor for many years.”[43] In the
Senate the repeal was only secured by a vote of 22 to 19.

In the year which followed came in Congress the first great sectional
struggle over the Missouri Question, involving the right of Southern
men to move into the Northwest with their slaves, with regard to which
some of them argued, that, in the long run, such diffusion of slaves
would not increase their number or result in the extension of slavery,
but rather tend to check the increase.

In his contemporaneous publication of speeches from both sides, the
editor of Niles’ Register regrets his inability to secure a copy of
the speech of William Lowndes, which, in all probability would have
been the most illuminating exposition of the Southern view, which could
have been submitted; but the speech of Tucker, of Virginia, does put
forward the idea as about stated; while Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, the
leading speaker on the Northern side, combats the same at sufficient
length to create the impression, that it was held by more than one. But
what is of greater interest is the distinct note of racial inferiority,
which Sergeant sounds loudly. It is not only objection to the Negro
slave; but to the Negro _per se_; ... “Nature has placed upon them an
unalterable mark ... They are and must forever remain distinct.”[44]

Senator Smith, who, by his vote in the South Carolina Legislature
in 1805 had most materially assisted in setting aside the South
Carolina law in opposition to African importation, while at the same
time fatuously declaring that he only did so because he thought it
impossible to prevent it, now, in the United States Senate, refused
all compromise, declaring that by sanctioning the slave trade in the
Constitution, the Federal Government was responsible for existing
conditions. But a compromise was effected, and in the year 1820, the
Union, then consisting of just double the number of the original
thirteen States, adjusted the difference on the Negro Question.

Geographically considered it was apparent that the black belt had
slipped a little lower down upon the body politic. The total colored
population of the Union was 1,771,856, more than half of whom were to
be found in the three States of Virginia, North Carolina and South
Carolina. In Virginia, 402,031; in South Carolina, 265,301; in North
Carolina, 219,629; a total of 886,961. Southwest of this section and
south of the Ohio River, the Negro population amounted to 529,856; but
in no State in the Union had the increase since 1800 been so enormous
as in South Carolina; for with an area and white population only
two-fifths of Virginia, the increase of the Negro population of the
two States had practically been the same, viz.: 156,538 for Virginia,
156,457 for South Carolina. Nor could any comforting reassurance have
been drawn from the fact that the percentage of increase of the same
species of population in the States of Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky
had been greater; for such had been accompanied, in these newer States,
with an even greater increase of their white population, and was based
upon an original Negro population very small indeed, when compared to
that of South Carolina in 1800. When comparison was made with Maryland,
on the other hand, where the number of Negroes had originally been
greater than in South Carolina, with the increase of the whites in
the three decades not so great, small as had been the increase of the
whites, it was yet greater than that of the colored, and originally the
proportion of whites had been greater.

From all these causes South Carolina was becoming in place of Virginia
the State most identified with the Negro question, in a section where
it was becoming a larger and more important property interest.

Yet, while the increase of the Negro population in the lower South
and Middle and Southwest had been very great, the census furnished no
evidence of that movement of Negroes from North to South which has been
so often alluded to. The Negro population of New York had increased
by more than 50 per cent; New Jersey by at least 43; Connecticut, 40;
and Delaware 38. Pennsylvania’s increase in the 30 years had been 200
per cent, and even in Massachusetts the increase had been 22 per cent.
The only State in which there had been a decrease, which could be
attributed to a movement to another section, was Rhode Island, and it
was not large enough to be considered, amounting in all to less than a
thousand. Considering the population of the Southern States, however,
the census afforded information well warranting the assumption that
from Virginia and Maryland between the years 1810 and 1820 some 30,000
colored people had moved out. In the same time the colored population
of North Carolina had increased by an accession of about 40,000; South
Carolina, 65,000; Georgia, 44,000; Alabama, 24,000; Mississippi,
16,000; Louisiana, 35,000; Tennessee, 37,000; and Missouri, 7,000;
the percentage of increase being, North Carolina 24 per cent; South
Carolina 32 per cent; Georgia 42 per cent; Mississippi 95 per cent;
Louisiana 55 per cent; Tennessee 80 per cent; Kentucky 58 per cent; and
Missouri nearly 300 per cent, with no basis with which to estimate the
42,000 of Alabama.

These figures establish a movement from Virginia and Maryland but also
from without, to the eight States of North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky,
averaging about 45 per cent increase in the decade, and with every
reasonable allowance for the movement from Virginia and Maryland and
New York, of which at least one-third must have gone to the Northwest
and Missouri, illegal importation must have been proceeding apace. Now,
if there was illegal importation, where would it be most likely to
occur?

In Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee; and there we find an increase
of nearly 85 per cent, or an addition to the Negro population of
something like 88,000.

These facts, therefore, disclose the weakness of the Southern argument
that the diffusion of slaves would not have resulted in any extension
of slavery. Theoretically it was a sound argument, that the slaves
being spread over the face of the country, they and their masters would
be brought more and more under the influences which would work against
slavery and for emancipation. But if illicit importation from abroad
was proceeding to any great extent, the premise upon which the argument
was based gave way, and this is what must have been the case, as has
been shown.

This is also where the argument of Prof. Ulrich Bonnell Phillips fails
to convince, when he expresses the opinion, that “the importance of
the repeal, in 1818, of the law which had prohibited the importation
of slaves from other States into South Carolina has been exaggerated.”
He bases his reason for this view upon the claim that “the Federal
Censuses show that the average rate of increase of the Negro population
in South Carolina between 1810 and 1860, was substantially smaller than
that of the Negroes in the United States at large, “which” he thinks,
“indicates that South Carolina was in that half century more of a slave
exporting than a slave importing State; and that a prohibition of slave
imports would have had no appreciable influence upon the ratio of
increase of her Negro population.”[45]

Unless it can be shown, however, that there were no accessions to
the Negro population of the United States from without, between the
periods selected by Prof. Phillips, the mere fact that the rate of
increase of the Negro population of South Carolina was substantially
smaller than that of the United States at large does not establish
that South Carolina was more of a slave exporting than importing State
for that period; for the greater increase without could well be due
to importation in great volume elsewhere, and that there was such
was asserted by many, notably by Henry Middleton, in Congress, the
very year of Hayne’s speech in the South Carolina Legislature against
importations from other States.[46] But apart from this, before this,
South Carolina had become the State with the largest Negro population
to its white population of all the States of the Union and that, the
rate of increase of her Negro population from this date, or even a
decade earlier, to 1860, “was substantially smaller than that of the
Negroes in the United States at large” was simply due to the tremendous
accessions of the Negro population of the four new cotton States:
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, superimposed upon a
Negro population originally much smaller than that of South Carolina.
The Negro population of those four States did in that period increase
1,384,555; but in the same time their white population increased
1,438,607; while in the same period the white and Negro population
of South Carolina increased respectively 53,860 and 147,028. And so
difficult was it to overcome this tremendous start attained by South
Carolina in these early fatal years, that in 1860 the excess of South
Carolina’s colored population over her white population was 121,029,
as compared with an excess of only 83,505 for Mississippi, the next
greatest. Undoubtedly in the period selected by Prof. Phillips many
Negro slaves passed out of South Carolina; but many whites did also;
for “from 1820 to 1860, South Carolina was a beehive from which swarms
were continually going forth to populate the newer growing cotton
States of the Southwest,” and “in 1860 there were then living in other
States 193,389 white persons born in South Carolina.”[47] In the half
century the average rate of increase of South Carolina whites was
between 7 and 8 per cent, colored 21. In Virginia and Maryland in 1810
the Negro population amounted to 668,515. It increased by 1860 by an
addition of 151,523. In South Carolina in 1810 the Negro population
amounted to 200,919, by 1860 it had received an addition of 212,401,
of which 64,382 had arrived in the decade of the repeal of the law
prohibiting importation from other States, and 58,021 in the following
decade. It is true that in the following decade from 1830 to 1840, the
increase of the Negro population of South Carolina was comparatively
slight, being only 11,992, but it was followed in the next decade by
again an increase of 58,630, while the white increase in the same two
decades was respectively 2,221 and 15,479.

But there was another way of measuring the importance of the repeal.
Necessarily with the inflowing tide came some such as Denmark Vesey
and Gullah Jack, slaves and free Negroes whose past was not known, and
according to the report of the Massachusetts legislative committee in
1821, dealing with only 6,740 free persons of color in the State,
among other “evils,” from such, appeared, _inter alia_:

2. Collecting in the large towns an indolent and disorderly and corrupt
population.

3. Substituting themselves in many labors and occupations which in the
end it would be more advantageous to have performed by the white and
native population of the State.[48]

It is apparent then, from this, as well as from the arguments of
Mr. Sergeant, that the real situation of the representatives of the
two sections, in the great Missouri debate, has never been put with
absolute accuracy. It was an assertion upon the part of the Southerners
of their right to carry their property with them wherever they went in
the Union, and upon the part of the Northerners a denial of this right.
It precipitated an argument whether extension and diffusion of slavery
meant the same thing, many Southern men, of eminence, contended that by
the process of diffusion there would be apt to be the beginning of the
end of slavery, and if there had been no illicit importation of slaves
possible, there would have been great merit in this suggestion. But
beyond all these arguments on the part of the Northerners, the Missouri
Question indicated opposition to the mere presence of the Negro, bond
or free, in the Northwest. He was an undesirable resident.

Up to this time, in the main, the attitude of the Southern statesmen
had been free from sectionalism. On the other hand, New England
had exhibited sectionalism, and it was New England’s deputies in
the Constitutional Convention, who joining with those of Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, had “formed a bargain,”
abrogating the slave trade in such a way as practically to recognize
slavery as a property interest secured by the Constitution. The
time allowed the slave trade had been long enough, as Madison had
said it would be. As great as had been the rate of increase of the
white population, it had been exceeded by that of the colored in the
proportions of 90 to 95 per cent. What Col. Mason had prophesied had
also come to pass. He had declared in 1787: “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 through South Carolina and
Georgia.”

They had been got no doubt in large numbers through South Carolina
and Georgia; but also, in all probabilities, through Louisiana, and
if not through, to some extent from, Maryland and Virginia. The Negro
population had in the West, in three decades sprung up from 16,322
to 385,825; while the seven States, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, held some
1,193,732 head of this species of property, representing an investment
of something like $477,492,800, stamped as property by having been made
dutiable under Federal law up to 1808. Such a property interest was
almost certain to produce a sectional policy for its protection, and
in the assertion of such a policy, South Carolina having the largest
stake and the most forceful representatives, would naturally take the
lead.

The consequences were that the broad national policy of Lowndes, from
this date gradually succumbed to the influences which forced Calhoun
away from it, despite his efforts to mould into one form a national and
sectional policy, based upon the declared recognition of slavery, in
place of, or in addition to, the implied recognition furnished by the
Constitutional compromise or “bargain” over the sanction of the slave
trade up to 1808. As the South drew together in support of slavery, the
overshadowing dimensions of its greatest exponent cast into oblivion
Barnwell, Hamilton and Alston, who had so clearly perceived the
dangers from its increase, and even reduced the proportions of men as
preëminently great as Lowndes and his successor, Robert Y. Hayne.

As long as the tariff held the center of the stage, the change was not
so clearly apparent; but with the settling down, after the explosion
of sentiment which nullification occasioned, the division between the
sections was unmistakable. From that period the Lower South presented
an unbroken front in defence of slavery, under the leadership of South
Carolina.

From 1800 the South had, to a great extent, directed the policies of
the Republic, and, in the persons of Lowndes, Cheves and Calhoun, South
Carolina had from 1813 to 1820 been a potent influence therein; but
the Missouri Compromise and Taylor’s election over Lowndes in 1820,
for the Speakership, marked the beginning of the change. No man saw it
more clearly than the great man whom Taylor defeated. His views on the
condition of affairs at this time is thus expressed by a contemporary:
“The Northern people had outstripped the Southern and desired to see
the offices of the Government in Northern hands. This inevitable result
Mr. Lowndes saw clearly forty years ago, and thought it wise for the
South to yield the hold she had so long possessed on political power,
when she was no longer able to retain it.”[49] The clear judgment of
Lowndes had revealed to him what the fatal brilliancy of Calhoun’s
intellect prevented him from perceiving, viz.: that there could not be
fashioned for the needs of imperfect humanity a perfectly symmetrical
policy. Lowndes had brought Webster and Clay together and pushed
through the tariff bill of 1816.[50]

Of that bill in reply to the fierce criticism that it was the worst
thing done since universal suffrage, he simply said, “neither was
altogether good, but the best possible for the time.” “He thought some
protection due to infant industries and that the question was, what
measure of protection do they require?” He held; “We are obliged to
leave some questions to posterity. We do our best with those that come
to us and future generations must bear their share of the trouble.”[51]
Accordingly, when the Baldwin bill of 1820 was brought forward,
“he opposed it on the ground that the increased duties were not
necessary.”[52] Before the tariff bill of 1824 could be presented, he
had passed away; but in his place, to share with Webster, the honors of
the splendid fight against it, South Carolina had sent up to Congress
Robert Y. Hayne, by Benton extolled as: “Of all the young generation of
statesmen coming on I consider him the safest, the most like William
Lowndes, and best entitled to future eminent lead.”[53]

How well Hayne lived up to this a study of his achievements exhibits.
But while so good a judge as the late Edward M. Shepard, in his Life
of Van Buren, ranks Hayne’s effort in the Senate, against the tariff
of 1824, as fully up to, if not beyond, that of Webster in the House,
scarcely any attention is paid to it by those historians who extoll the
speech of Webster.

Again, while almost every history deals at length with the Senatorial
debates, and elaborates Hayne’s speech on the Panama Mission in 1825,
absolutely no mention appears concerning the far more important
utterance with regard to the Colonization Society in 1827. Yet Hayne’s
speech, in his debate with Chambers over the Colonization Society, is
one of the most important utterances ever made by a Southern Statesman.
It indicates what was the prevailing view with regard to the Negro
Question, before the unfortunate episode of nullification, by which
Calhoun fastened upon the South the belief that slavery as it existed
in the Southern States, was a good. In the speech in 1827, Hayne first
showed the absurdity of the scheme of transporting the blacks to
Africa in such a number as to affect the situation. That the presence
of Negroes in the country was an evil, he did not attempt to deny,
but declared, “The progress of time and events is providing a remedy
for the evil.” He showed by statistics that the relative increase of
free white population was rising, while that of the colored, whether
bond or free, was diminishing, and that “while this process is going
on the colored classes are gradually diffusing themselves throughout
the country, and are making steady advances in intelligence and
refinement, and if half the zeal were displayed in bettering their
condition that is wasted in the vain and fruitless effort of sending
them abroad, their intellectual and moral improvement would be steady
and rapid.”[54] Why is it that this utterance of the leader of his
party in the Senate is never alluded to by historians? Is it because it
invites investigation as to the condition of the blacks in the Northern
and Western States at this period and for the twenty years which
followed? It is difficult to tell. But from this time the question took
a change. Subordinating to it the tariff and the interest in railroad
development, with the conditions created by nullification by 1833, the
State of South Carolina, and, by 1839, the South, was committed to the
view of Calhoun: “Our fate as a people is bound up in the question. If
we yield, we will be extirpated; but if we successfully resist, we will
be the greatest and most flourishing people of modern time. It is the
best substratum of population in the world, and one on which great and
flourishing Commonwealths may be most easily and safely reared.”[55]
And to this “Negro substratum population” policy both the tariff and
the railroad development of the South were accordingly subordinated
until Calhoun’s death, when Georgia, as a result of having outstripped
South Carolina in both men and material, stepped into the place of
leadership South Carolina could no longer fill, and with the ambitious
scheme of forcing slavery to the Pacific, in ten years, produced the
War Between the States.


FOOTNOTES:

[41] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 67.

[42] Statutes of S. C. Vol. 7, p. 451.

[43] _Charleston Courier_, Dec. 22, 1818. Jervey, Hayne, p. 80.

[44] Niles’ Register, Vol. 18, p. 383.

[45] American Hist. Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 630.

[46] Suppression of Slave Trade, DuBois, p. 124.

[47] McCrady, S. C. Under Proprietary Govt. p. 1.

[48] Studies American Race Problem, Stone, p. 57. Robert Y. Hayne & His
Times, Jervey, p. 114.

[49] Grayson, Memoir of James L. Petigru, p. 116.

[50] _City Gazette_, Sept. 16, 1820.

[51] Ravenel, Life & Times of William Lowndes, p. 154-5.

[52] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 112.

[53] Benton, Thirty Years View, Vol. 2, p. 188.

[54] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, pp. 205-209. Abridgment of
Debates of Congress, Vol. 9, p. 303, _et seq._

[55] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 368.




CHAPTER IV


As has been shown, nine years subsequent to his unavailing struggle
to restrict the swelling proportions of the Negro population in his
own State, Robert Y. Hayne, in the United States Senate, stated his
views concerning that class of our population with regard to the entire
country. But before discussing that further it should be noted, that
a renewed effort in 1822 had again been defeated by the narrow but
effective majority of nine votes, drawing from Governor Bennett, of
South Carolina the pessimistic declaration:

 “The evil is entailed and we can do no more than steadily to pursue
 that course indicated by stern necessity and not less imperious
 policy.”[56]

Along another line, therefore, was the last peaceful effort to be
made to solve the Negro Question. Taken in connection with the
great industrial work, in which he literally wore out his life, in
1839, Hayne’s speech in the United States Senate in 1827 is most
illuminating. Upon that occasion he said:

 “The history of this country has proved that when the relative
 proportion of the colored population to the white is greatly
 diminished, slaves cease to be valuable, and emancipation follows of
 course, and they are swallowed up in the common mass. Wherever free
 labor is put in full and successful operation, slave labor ceases to
 be profitable. It is true that it is a very gradual operation and that
 it must be, to be successful or desirable.”[57]

Was it not the very irony of fate that, as this speaker, later, in
1839, lay dying at Asheville, North Carolina, while a wordy war was
being waged over his great railroad to the West, criticism should
have been “directed against the contracts given to planters to be
executed with slave labor” by the chief lieutenant of that great South
Carolinian, who had only the year before, in withdrawing from the
enterprise, extolled Negro slaves as “the best substratum of population
in the world?”

Col. Gadsden, from this time and on, more and more a confidant of
Calhoun until they parted over Taylor’s candidacy for the Presidency,
asked:

 “Why had not the work been given to Northern contractors, who had
 offered to execute it at a price 12½ to 15 per cent cheaper? The
 answer was comprehensive. The planters objected to imported free labor
 being brought into contact with their slaves. This was unfortunate,
 but the company could not antagonize an element which practically
 controlled the State; and in addition they had in many instances given
 the right of way. But further still, when the chief engineer obtained
 the floor, he challenged the correctness of the charge.”[58]

Between 1830 and 1840, two Southern States, South Carolina and
Maryland, leading the Union in railroad development, were endeavoring
to effect railroad connection with the Northwest. A comparison of their
conditions prior and subsequent to 1810, suggests one of the reasons
why one succeeded and the other failed.

From 1790 to 1810 the white population of Maryland increased from
208,649 to 235,117, or about 11.10 per cent. In the same twenty years
the white population of South Carolina rose from 140,178 to 214,196
or about 51.20 per cent. It is quite true that in the same period the
Negro population in South Carolina increased from 108,805 to 200,919
or 85.6 per cent, while that of Maryland rose only from 111,079 to
145,129 or only 30.07 per cent. Yet, when we bear in mind that the
area of South Carolina was two and a half times as great as Maryland,
had the efforts which had been made in 1816 and in 1822 to stop Negro
importation from outside succeeded, the economic conditions of South
Carolina between 1830 and 1840 might have been stronger. Indeed in
1822 Gen. Thomas Pinckney declared cheap Negro labor, even then, was
steadily undermining the white artisan class in South Carolina.[59] He
was patriot enough to so declare, although his own great brother was
more responsible than any one else for the evil.

In the three decades which followed 1810, and closed with the death
of Hayne and the destruction of his five year effort to secure the
Northwestern railroad connection, the colored population of Maryland,
which did secure it, increased only 6,396, from 145,429 to 151,815,
while its white population in the same period rose from 235,117 to
318,204, an increase of 83,087. In South Carolina in the same time the
white population rising from 214,196 to 259,344 increased only 44,883,
about one-half as much, while its Negro population rising from 200,314
to 335,344, or 134,395, about twenty times as much as Maryland.
Viewed in the light of the unfair criticism directed against the South
Carolina Railroad, was not the message of Governor Paul Hamilton in
1804, to the South Carolina Legislature, vindicated?

 “Viewed with reference to population it increases our weakness, not
 our strength, for it must be admitted that in proportion as you add to
 the number of slaves, you prevent the influx of those men who would
 increase the means of defense and security.”[60]

How our forgotten great men fought to avoid the Nessus Shirt! Who
remembers that Hamilton was big enough to be made Secretary of the
Navy? Under the great upas tree of South Carolina all other greatness
languished and by 1840 the property interests in Negroes had become so
immense, that it not only paralyzed other industries, which could by
any stretch of imagination be thought to threaten its efficiency, but
it affected public opinion to a degree which now seems hardly credible.

Calhoun’s view in 1838, that the Negro furnished “the best substratum
of population in the world and the one on which commonwealths may be
most easily and safely reared”[61] was not singular in the South at
that date. The great meeting of Southern business men at Augusta, Ga.
in 1838 put on record its belief:

 “That of all the social conditions of man, the most favorable to the
 development of the cardinal virtues of the heart and the noblest
 faculties of the soul, to the promotion of private happiness and
 public prosperity, is that of slave holding communities under free
 political institutions.”[62]

Even Hayne, himself, despite his realization of South Carolina’s
wasteful cultivation of her soil, was so affected by the tremendous
interests involved in slavery, and the fearful shock of any such
disturbance as the Abolitionists threatened in 1835, as to declare at
that time:

 “Slavery, as it now exists in the Southern States, which we all
 feel and know to be essential to the prosperity and welfare—nay to
 the very existence of the States—is so little understood in other
 portions of the Union that it has been lately assailed in a spirit
 which threatens, unless speedily arrested, to lead eventually to
 the destruction of the Union and all the evils which must attend so
 lamentable an occurrence.”[63]

By 1838, conditions had reached such a development that the abolition
of slavery could come but in one of two ways, either peacefully,
through the slow process of changing industrial conditions, or swiftly
and forcibly, as a war measure; therefore, when Calhoun withdrew his
support from Hayne’s railroad to the Northwest in 1838, the sensible
course would have been to prepare for the inevitable conflict.

Allusion has been made to the Black Laws of Ohio, which had their
counterpart in Indiana and Illinois, and reference had to the Report
of the Massachusetts Legislative Committee in 1821, as indicative of
feeling in the North and Northeast, concerning the Negro as a citizen,
and, if we consider conditions in the Middle States at this period,
we will find them hardly different. As depicted by the most highly
educated member of the Negro race today in the United States, in
Philadelphia conditions were as follows:

 “By 1830 the black population of the city and districts had increased
 to 15,624, an increase of 27 per cent for the decade 1820-1830, and
 of 48 per cent since 1810. Nevertheless the growth of the city had
 far outstripped this; by 1830 the county had nearly 175,000 whites,
 among whom was a rapidly increasing contingent of 5,000 foreigners.
 So intense was the race antipathy among the lower classes, and so
 much countenance did it receive from the middle and upper classes,
 that there began in 1829 a series of riots directed chiefly against
 Negroes, which recurred frequently until about 1840, and did not
 wholly cease until after the war.”[64]

At this date, 1840, in ten of the eleven States which later constituted
the Confederacy, there were 3,311,117 whites and 2,267,319 Negroes;
and in three of them; South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana, the
whites were in the minority, and they, therefore, best represented the
condition which Calhoun in 1838 extolled.[65]

With such views, what more natural than that Calhoun should view as a
“humbug” the great railroad measure of Hayne, founded as it was in some
degree upon the belief of the latter that “wherever free labor is put
in full and successful operation, slave labor ceases to be profitable.”
A railroad connecting Cincinnati with Charleston would certainly have
tended to “put in full and successful operation free labor,” and slave
labor ceasing more and more to be profitable would have gradually
passed out of existence in that region.

Yet it must be admitted, that the greatest writer and thinker who has
ever discussed America, viewing conditions at that time, while utterly
opposed to slavery, practically endorsed Calhoun’s views. Summing up
his conclusion in 1838, de Tocqueville writes:

 “When I contemplate the condition of the South, I can only discover
 two alternatives which may be adopted by the white inhabitants of
 those States; either to emancipate the Negroes and to intermingle with
 them; or remain isolated from them to keep them in a state of slavery
 as long as possible. All intermediate measures seem to me likely to
 terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars, and
 perhaps in the extirpation of one or the other of the two races.”[66]

Time, however, has proven that both de Tocqueville and Calhoun were
wrong.

From a Negro minority of 13,277 in 1810, the census indicated for South
Carolina in 1840, a Negro majority of 76,230 an excess of the Negro
population over the white of more than double what existed in Louisiana
and quadruple that of Mississippi.

In 1843, for the better controlling of this “best substratum of
population in the world”[67] only five years after its discovery as
such, the following Act was passed by the General Assembly of South
Carolina:

 “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives now met
 and sitting, and by the authority of the same: That from and after
 the passage of this Act, any slave or free person of color who shall
 commit an assault and battery on a white woman with intent to commit
 rape, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death without benefit
 of clergy.”[68]

For whites, it was not apparently necessary to raise the grade of the
offense from that of a misdemeanor. But if the above Act was not a
sufficient vindication of the opposition of Barnwell, Paul Hamilton,
Alston and Hayne to the continued increase of the Negro population of
South Carolina, Calhoun, himself, furnished something of an argument
against the “best substratum” by his declaration only nine years after
its discovery:

 “We know what we are about, we foresee what is coming, and move with
 no other purpose but to protect our portion of the Union from the
 greatest of calamities—not insurrection but something worse. I see
 the end if the process is to go on unresisted; it is to expel in time
 the white population of the Southern States and leave the blacks in
 possession.”[69]

If this is a true picture of conditions in 1847, as black as we may
consider the Abolitionists of that day, one thing is evident, and that
is, that without such a mass of “the best substratum of population”
to work upon, the Abolitionists could not possibly have effected
what Calhoun feared: therefore, the statesmanship of William Smith,
McDuffie, and Calhoun, which had favored and assisted in the gathering
of it, to that extent was inferior to the statesmanship of Paul
Hamilton, Barnwell, Alston and Hayne which had attempted to arrest
the growth. But that was not apparent to the South in 1850, and it is
doubtful whether it would be very generally admitted even today; for
interest will color opinion and Negro cheap labor is still the first
consideration to many people in the South, just as European pauper
labor is to many in the North. Both North and South can see clearly the
mote in their brother’s eye; but not the beam in their own eye.

By the census of 1850, the population of the 33 States, which
constituted the Union, summed up 22,969,603 persons, divided as
follows: In the 19 Free States 13,230,231 whites; 213,346 free persons
of color; 2,536 slaves. In the 14 Slave States there were: 6,113,068
whites; 210,085 free persons of color; 3,200,590 slaves. That meant
that the South had invested in that species of property interest
$1,280,200,000. By money values and population, at that time, that was
an immense sum.

The Democratic Review, in this same year, published an article which
was republished in the Charleston _Mercury_, and commended by that
paper. This article sets forth certain distinct claims of considerable
interest:

First that:

 “The face of affairs is entirely changed since General Pinckney, in
 convention assented to the proposition giving Congress the right to
 pass laws, regulating commerce by a simple majority, on the ground
 that it was a boon granted the North in consideration of the necessity
 which the weak South had for the strong North as a neighbor. The
 cotton trade then scarcely existed, but the material has since
 been spun into a web which binds the commercial world to Southern
 interests.”[70]

Figures were also introduced to show that the multiplication of free
blacks in the Slave States was increasing upon the proportion of slaves
and that it was observable that they did not emigrate from the Slave
States, where it was claimed they must in time supplant the slaves
as servants; and the laws of Ohio were pointed to as indicating an
opposition, not to slavery, but to the presence of the Negro, which it
claimed, had greatly retarded emancipation. In these claims truth was
mingled with error.

As to the indisposition of the people of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, to admit any class of colored persons to
enter as residents, there can be no doubt up to this date, although
indications of a change of sentiment were appearing. The repeal of the
Black Laws of Ohio was one illustration. With 1,955,059 whites to only
25,279 colored persons, the harsh provisions, which closed the mouths
of these unfortunates when contending with the whites, in so called
courts of justice, it was conceded by the whites of Ohio, could be
safely done away with, and they had been repealed in 1848. It may also
have been true that the free blacks did not emigrate from the Slave
States; but that in that region they were gaining upon the slaves, and
that there was any reasonable possibility of their supplanting them as
servants, does hot seem to be borne out by examination of the census.

The Democratic Review claims that, while in 1800 there were in the
Slave States 61,441 free persons of color to 73,100 in the Free
States, that by 1830 the proportions were 182,070 in the Slave States
to 137,525 in the Free States, a proportion raised by 1840 to 215,568
to 172,509. But this seems inexact. By the census of 1800 there were
in the Slave States 52,188 free persons of color, to 55,464 in the
Free States, and by 1830 the number in the Slave States had, it is
true, surpassed the number in the Free States, such being respectively
160,063 to 153,384. But whether it was in consequence of the Nat
Turner insurrection of 1831, or the Abolition ebullition of 1835, by
1840 there was a change in progress, the proportion being in that year
190,285 in the Slave States to 187,647 in the Free States, which, as
has before been shown, by 1850 had changed to 210,085 in the Slave
States to 213,346 in the Free States.

At the same time it could be noted that while the Negroes in the United
States had increased by more than 28 per cent since 1840, the freedmen
had increased by less than 13 per cent in the same time.

In the Free States of New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut
the free colored population had decreased by 1,402. In the Slave States
of Louisiana and Mississippi it had decreased by 8,174, and that State
in the South which held more than one-fourth of the whole number in the
Southern States, Virginia, had appropriated $30,000 a year for their
removal.[71]

The South was apparently, therefore, committed to the institution of
African Slavery, and in defense of it some of its champions were wild
enough to waive the question of the inferiority of the Negro race and
contend, “that slavery, whether of black or white, is a normal, proper
institution in society.”[72]

The Richmond, Va., _Inquirer_, The Muscogee, Ala., _Herald_, The New
Orleans, La., _Delta_ and the Charleston, S. C., _Standard_, are
all quoted by an English writer, whose work appeared in print about
1855.[73] The three first as sustaining the above extraordinary claim;
while the fourth called for a revival of the Slave Trade.

Even if correctly quoted the comments of these papers do not establish
the prevailing sentiment in the South at that time; for the publication
at Charleston and reception of Dr. John Bachman’s work on the “Unity
of the Human Race” would to some extent constitute an opinion to the
contrary.

But that the South was positively, unreservedly, and even aggressively
committed to the institution of African Slavery is indisputable.

It had not been so always. The change began in 1833, when the
Charleston _Mercury_ declared—“The institution of slavery is not an
evil but a benefit.” That paper had upon that occasion admitted that in
the past the South had entertained a view to the contrary; but asserted
in 1833, that even in Virginia and North Carolina:

“The great mass of the South sanction no such admission, that Southern
Slavery is an evil to be deprecated.”[74]

And, as the appetite grows by what it feeds upon, in 1855, The Richmond
_Examiner_ was quoted as declaring:

 “It is all a hallucination that we are ever going to get rid of
 African Slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so.... True
 philanthropy to the Negro begins at home; and if every Southern man
 would act as if the canopy of Heaven were inscribed with a covenant
 in letters of fire, that the Negro is here and here forever; is our
 property and ours forever; is never to be emancipated; is to be kept
 hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days; and is never
 to go to Africa, to Polynesia, or to Yankee land,—far worse than
 either,—they would accomplish more good for the race in five years
 than they boast the institution itself to have accomplished in two
 centuries.”[75]

Yet as extreme as the above is, it is quite probable that the
extravagance and injustice of the declaration against slavery in the
Southern States, had exasperated those supporting it to utterances as
extravagant.

In the opening of the year 1850 a resolution of the Legislature of
Vermont was introduced in Congress which recited:

 “That slavery is a crime against humanity, and a sore evil in the body
 politic, that was excused by the framers of the Federal Constitution
 as a crime entailed upon the country by their predecessors, and
 tolerated solely as a thing of inexorable necessity.”[76]

How Southern men must have felt this it is almost impossible for us
to appreciate today. It was not only an indictment of the South at
a bar where there was no provision for a trial; but it ended in a
hypocritical falsehood; for slavery had not been, “tolerated solely
as a thing of inexorable necessity.” Existing in every State except
Massachusetts, the question whether the existing condition could
be affected by permission to increase the slaves for a period by
importation was committed with the clauses relating to taxes on exports
and to a Navigation Act, that these things might “form a bargain
between the Northern and Southern States.”

This motion by Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, was adopted by
the vote of seven of the eleven States in Convention, against three
opposing and one abstaining from voting, one of the delegates whereof
seconded the motion of Pinckney to increase the period permitting
importation, which he with one of the opponents of commitment voted
for; so that actually slavery, with the right to increase it by the
Slave Trade, was voted for by nine out of eleven States participating.

The Vermont resolution accomplished nothing; but to no individual in
Congress could it have inflicted such a wound as it dealt to Calhoun.
To him resolutions were of enormous importance, and yet he never seemed
quite ready to follow them up with acts. He was at last in the grasp
of that power which overcomes all things except God. Twelve years had
elapsed since he had been called upon to decide between the policy of
Hayne, based upon the effort to bind together in close commercial
intercourse the leading Western and Southern States, by a railroad
from Ohio to South Carolina, and the resolution of Rhett, to amend the
Constitution or dissolve the Union.

To neither could he agree. For Hayne’s connection with Ohio through
North Carolina, he substituted a connection with Arkansas through
Georgia.

To the warning of his closest intimate that it was “better to part
peaceably than to live in the state of indecision we do,” he could only
reply with the vague allusion to:

 “The many bleeding pores which must be taken up in passing the knife
 through a body politic, in order to make two of one, which had
 been so long bound together by so many ties, political, social and
 commercial.”[77]

In this declaration there is unmistakably intense feeling for the
Union; but also some indecision; for what could have been a more
practical application of Calhoun’s teaching than Rhett’s amendment to
Slade’s bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia? That was a
resolution upon which some strong action could be erected. Twelve years
had passed, nothing had been done, and now came the resolution of the
Vermont Legislature. In the first shock which it gave him, Calhoun was
unjust to his own following. He said:

 “Mr. President, I intended not to say a word on this subject. I have
 long labored faithfully to repress the encroachments of the North, at
 the commencement I saw where it would end and must end; and I despair
 of ever seeing it ended in Congress. It will go to its end, for
 gentlemen have already yielded to the current of the North which they
 admit they cannot resist, Sir, what the South will do is not for me to
 say. They will meet it, in my opinion, as it ought to be met.”[78]

A month later he reviewed the political situation in a most elaborate
and searching analysis, his last great speech, read for him by Senator
Mason, of Virginia. “How Can the Union be Preserved?” In endeavoring
to give an “answer to this great question,” he asserted that the
discontent of the South was due to the fact that political power had
been taken from that section and transferred to the North, not through
natural causes, but by legislation which could be classed under three
heads, the first of which was exclusion from common territory; second
a system of revenue under which an undue portion of the burden of
taxation had been imposed upon the South, and the proceeds appropriated
to the North; third a system of measures changing the original
character of the government. The result, he claimed, had been a change
from a Constitutional Federal Republic to the despotism of a numerical
majority in which a question of vital importance to the minority was
threatened:

 “The relation between the races in the Southern section ... which
 cannot be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest
 calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation and wretchedness.”[79]

Whether right or wrong, the first of these claims had been settled by
the Missouri Compromise in 1820, which the South had acquiesced in.
The second Calhoun, himself, had undertaken to right in 1832, and if
there had been a failure it was due in some measure to his inability to
diagnose with sufficient accuracy the situation at that time.

Along two lines from 1827 there had proceeded the effort of the South
to recover her power and increase her population; to restore her waning
political influence and rebuild her commercial strength. One was
through revision of the tariff, the other through internal improvement
by means of railroad development. The first, despite all the interest
it attracted and the splendid forensic display it gave rise to, not
only was a lamentable failure in its curative effect, but very probably
added somewhat to the difficulties which hampered the other. Now with
regard to the first, Calhoun had mapped out the plan, and undertook
the responsibility through the nullification project, with which he
effected the relegation of Hayne to the post of Governor of the State
of South Carolina from the United States Senate, to which he, himself,
repaired with almost ambassadorial powers. The effect of Nullification
on the Tariff should be analysed before considering the railroad
campaign, with which Calhoun could not refrain from interfering, with
results most disappointing to those he induced to accept his view and
abandon that of his faithful friend and quondam supporter, made by
the Knoxville Convention of 1836, much more thoroughly the commercial
leader of the South than Calhoun had ever been made its political
guide.

Mr. John B. Cleveland says in his pamphlet on the “Controversy between
John C. Calhoun and Robert Y. Hayne:

 “There can be no question as to the sincerity of purpose or integrity
 of character of Mr. Calhoun. At the same time as the common saying is
 ‘he was set in his ideas’ and he could not bear opposition.”[80]

Upon many questions he could change and did change his views, but these
changes all seem to have proceeded from a certain development of the
man himself, not from any contact with others. So confident was he of
his own powers that he could never profit by the realization of his
mistakes. If in one of the greatest eulogies ever delivered by a great
follower over a great leader, it could be asserted that:

 “It is due to truth, to history and to him, to declare that he
 assisted powerfully in giving currency to opinions and building up
 systems that have proved seriously injurious to the South and probably
 to the stability of the existing Union.”[81]—

a critical investigation of Calhoun’s failure in the revision of the
tariff may not be without instruction; for it was for the purpose of
securing a proper framing of such that Nullification was launched.
Later we may consider the railroad.


FOOTNOTES:

[56] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 135.

[57] Ibid. p. 208. Abridgment of Debates of Congress, Vol. 19. p. 303
_et seq._

[58] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 511.

[59] Ibid. p. 130.

[60] _Charleston Courier_, Dec. 2, 1805.

[61] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 368.

[62] _Charleston Courier_, April 9, 1838.

[63] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 389.

[64] DuBois; The Philadelphia Negro, p. 26.

[65] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 368.

[66] Tocqueville: Democracy in America, Vol. 2, p. 245.

[67] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 368.

[68] Statutes of S. C. Vol. XI, p. 279.

[69] Pinckney: Life of Calhoun, p. 161.

[70] _Charleston Mercury_, Feb. 15, 1850.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Chambers: American Slavery & Color, p. 1.

[73] Ibid, pp. 1-2.

[74] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 366.

[75] Chambers; American Slavery & Color, p. 7.

[76] _Charleston Mercury_, Jan. 12, 1850.

[77] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 391.

[78] _Charleston Mercury_, Jan. 12, 1850.

[79] Pinckney; Life of Calhoun, pp. 167-181.

[80] Cleveland; Controversy between Calhoun & Hayne p. 7.

[81] Hammond; Oration on Calhoun, Press of Walker & James 1850, C. L.
S. Vol. XV p. 23.




CHAPTER V


The Nullification episode has been generally treated as a struggle
between Jackson and Calhoun. In its outward manifestations it was a
contest between the President and the State of South Carolina; but in
the settlement it really was a struggle between Calhoun and Clay.

The position of Henry Clay, in 1833, was one to test to the utmost
the powers of that great politician. In the preceding year he had
sternly refused Hayne’s amendment to his tariff bill, enacting his own
view coupled with a threat of enforcement. He had, however, seen his
Act nullified by the State of South Carolina, under the governorship
of Hayne, and himself beaten overwhelmingly for the presidency by
Jackson, who, while threatening coercion in South Carolina, had
nevertheless, made Hayne’s amendment to the tariff the basis of his own
recommendation on that subject to Congress. A bill had been introduced
in the House, to restore the duties to the scale of 1816. What could
Clay do to redeem himself and his cause? Back to the Senate, in Hayne’s
vacant seat, was Clay’s “old companion at arms with a practical power
of attorney from the recalcitrant State.”[82]

Clay at once entered into negotiations with Calhoun himself,
introducing a bill in the Senate, to the two principles of which, viz.,
“that time should be given the manufacturers and that an _ad valorem_
duty should be provided for”, Calhoun assented and the bill was
referred to a select committee consisting of: Clay, Clayton, Calhoun,
Grundy, Webster, Rives, and Dallas.

Then up came the Revenue Collection Bill, supported by thirty-two
Senators, and passed with only seven besides Calhoun opposing, and the
great politician from Kentucky had Calhoun safely tangled in his net.
Against the protest of the latter, he amended his tariff bill with a
provision that in the valuation of imported articles, “the valuation
should be at the port in which the goods were imported.” Calhoun argued
that this would be a great injustice to the South, as the price of
goods being cheaper in the Northern than in the Southern cities, a
home valuation would give the former a preference.[83] But that was
exactly what Clay had proposed, and was determined to do, and although
Webster and Silsbee of Massachusetts, Hill of New Hampshire, Dallas of
Pennsylvania and Kane and Benton of Missouri came to Calhoun’s support,
Calhoun fearing evidently to wreck his compromise with Clay, yielded
this vital point. To consider all that was involved in the surrender
of Calhoun, it will be necessary to revert to the past and to consider
some political views emanating from the mightiest intellect South
Carolina ever produced.

Prior to the framing of the Constitution of the United States and
subsequent to the peace between Great Britain and the States, the value
of the imports from Great Britain to America had exceeded the value
of the exports from America to Great Britain to such an amount as to
be nearly three times as great; while the commerce between the two
countries was very nearly ten times as great as that between the States
and the rest of the world. This condition had produced anything but
prosperity for America.

The statesman who had contributed most to the framing of the
Constitution, Charles Pinckney, in his effort to secure its
ratification by his own State, had made among other things this
remarkable statement:

 “‘Foreign Trade’ is one of the enemies against which we must be
 extremely guarded, more so than against any other, as none will ever
 have a more unfavorable operation. I consider it as the root of our
 present public distress, as the plentiful source from which our future
 national calamities will flow, unless great care is taken to prevent
 it.”[84]

Thirty years later he warned Congress along similar lines, “that a
country mainly agricultural and without mines of the precious metals,
could not have its imports greatly in excess of its exports, without
financial disaster.”[85]

From the time of the Union to the first embargo and the war of 1812,
the immense preponderance of the value of imports had been greatly
reduced from nearly treble to an excess of but twenty-five per cent;
but in the two years which followed the peace they had increased to
almost double the value of the exports. Under Lowndes’s tariff of 1816
they again fell to an excess of only about twenty per cent by 1821.[86]

From that period until the Compromise of 1833, they still further
fell to an excess of about eight per cent; the value of the exports
for these twelve years being $934,287,320, and that of the imports
$1,007,853,830, a total excess of value for imports in the twelve years
amounting to $73,566,502.

Considering the States through which this commerce moved, we
find, with regard to Massachusetts, for this period, the value of
exports, $125,378,462; imports, $182,861,825. Pennsylvania, exports,
$86,062,157; imports, $139,891,027. Maryland, exports, $53,048,043;
imports, $56,860,616. New York, exports, $267,371,444; imports,
$473,671,382. An excess of imports at Northern ports of the value of
$321,000,000.

Now taking the Southern States for the same period, we find Virginia,
exports, $47,535,525; imports, $7,093,499. South Carolina, exports,
$93,018,377; imports, $20,625,049. Georgia, exports, $56,167,842;
imports $5,828,581. Alabama, exports, $14,897,425; imports, $1,631,343.
Louisiana, exports, $138,670,081; imports, $68,321,568. An excess of
exports amounting to $247,000,000.[87]

While, therefore, a great amount of money from the South may have been
expended for Northern manufactures, a great deal also went out for
importation of goods through Northern markets.

The revision of the tariff was to correct both wrongs.

But the result was simply that in a period half as long, six years,
the excess of the value of imports over exports for the whole country
doubled and this without any appreciable gain in the exports of
Virginia and but a slight gain, considering the agitation, for South
Carolina; or totally a condition which, with even the greater gain of
Georgia, still left the South Atlantic States in both import and export
trade far behind the Gulf States, more rapidly developing, and fed by
the great waterway of the Mississippi.

But it was when taking up for consideration the condition of the
Northern States after 1833 that the absolute ineffectiveness of the
revision of the tariff, at that time, to cure the wrongs of trade was
most glaringly exhibited. Even with a declining export, Massachusetts,
in the six years brought in goods to the amount of the value she had
imported in the previous twelve, and with those of Maryland, exceeded
those of the Gulf ports. The trade of Pennsylvania was indeed crippled.
But while the exports of New York fell behind those of Louisiana, in
the value of import goods in the six years, the importation of the
previous twelve were exceeded. The revision of the tariff in 1833
had not only not got at the root of the trouble, it had apparently
aggravated it; for it had while injuring Pennsylvania, stimulated
Massachusetts, New York and Maryland to make on importation what they
had lost on manufactures; while, in place of the money so expended
remaining in circulation in the United States, a great volume of it
must have gone abroad. The panic of 1837, which came in the spring,
and which followed the greatest of New York’s importations, a figure
not attained again in fourteen years of increasing population, had
its origin in New York. It did much to cramp the Southern railroad
movement of that date; but neither it nor the panic of 1839 did as much
to ham-string Southern effort as the divided councils and unfortunate
rivalries of South Carolina and Georgia and Hayne and Calhoun.

It might have been unreasonable to have expected Georgians to have
assisted a road to the West to pass through North Carolina from
Charleston, to the neglect of their own State, and they had every
right to start their “rival system,” as an apologist styles it; but
for South Carolinians to abandon what was under way in their own
State backed by North Carolina and Tennessee, however weakly, and to
pour their money into Georgia, when at the very threshold there was
refusal to permit the bridging of the Savannah river for them, was the
very extremity of folly, no matter by whom advocated, and for writers
of history to characterize as a bubble and fiasco the great scheme
launched by the Knoxville Convention in 1836, is simply to indicate a
lack of understanding of all that was involved in that undertaking,
and to resolutely shut eyes to the nature of the obstructions which
blocked its progress at the time it was most essential to push it most
determinedly.

As it was by the railroads that the Slavery Question was eventually
settled, it is interesting to note that the first intelligent move
towards railroad construction in the United States was contemporaneous
with the great speech of Robert Y. Hayne in the United States Senate in
1827 on the Negro Question. Some evidence has been adduced to indicate
the probability of his responsibility for the first suggestion of a
railroad to be operated by steam power, in the United States, in 1821
to run from Charleston to Augusta, with a fork to Columbia.[88] While
Hayne may have been this early suggester, it is quite possible and not
all improbable that the suggester, “H”, might have been Elias Horry.
But six years later, when the movement took definite shape, Hayne in
the United States Senate made an utterance, which may be considered as,
at that time, representing the view of his section concerning the Negro
Question, viz., that:

 “The history of the country has proved that where the relative
 proportion of the colored population to the white was greatly
 diminished, slaves ceased to be valuable and emancipation followed
 of course ... wherever free labor was put into full and successful
 operation, slave labor ceased to be valuable.”[89]

“Time and patience,” he had then contended, were alone necessary to
solve the Negro Problem. But Nullification in 1832 and the Abolition
ebullition of 1835 had, however, later affected the sections profoundly
and from this latter date the political history of the Republic
depended more and more upon the influences which could be brought to
bear upon the West by the South and the North, and upon the South and
the North by the West. Every influence which contributed to homogeniety
was an influence towards peaceful development. That the Hayne of 1835
was, _ipsissimus verbis_, the Hayne of 1827 cannot be claimed; but
to no statesman in the Union was the necessity more apparent for the
promotion of this homogeneity than to him to whom had been confided by
the representatives of nine States the stupendous task of pushing the
great Western railroad from Charleston to Cincinnati, the front door of
the great West for “free social and commercial intercourse,”[90] with:

 “Reciprocal dependence from Michigan to Florida, by establishing
 connections in business, promoting friendships, abolishing prejudices,
 creating greater uniformity in political opinions and blending the
 feeling of distant portions of the country into a union of heart.”[91]

The “rival system,” in favor of which Calhoun abandoned Hayne’s
railroad in 1838, was not in all probability originally designed for
but eventually became the vehicle of a scheme of political conquest,
which aimed at an approach to the back door of the West through the new
State of Arkansas. This statement may be received with impatience, but
examination will show its truth.

The Charleston and Hamburg Railroad was chartered in 1828, and by 1831
was making fair progress. There must have been in contemplation at that
date, the original plan of the fork to Columbia, and a continuation
West, through North Carolina and Tennessee; for the first projector
in Georgia, James A. Merriwether, mentions it in a letter to Elias
Horry of date June 8th, 1831.[92] In answer Elias Horry advises him
distinctly that the company desires “the completion of a railroad, if
possible, by way of the Saluda Gap,” but sees the importance of the
one across Georgia, and advises that connection be made with Savannah,
which should reap some of the advantages which she is entitled to.[93]

[Illustration: U. S. 1830

WHITES

WHITES & BLACKS

NEGROES

RAILWAYS COMPLETED

” PROJECTED]

In the very year in which Calhoun was advising the people:—

 “if all other effectual resistance should fail, it would be their duty
 to take measures to concentrate the voice of the South, which should
 plainly announce to their Northern brethren that either the Bill
 (Force) or the political connection must yield:—”[94]

in his report on the completion of the Charleston and Hamburg Railroad
in 1833, Elias Horry alludes to the “Western and Atlantic Railroad
Convention” held in Asheville, North Carolina, September 3rd, 1832,
for a “Railroad up the French Broad River,” at which were pointed out
the many and great advantages that would be produced ... not less
in a political than in a commercial point of view, so indissolubly
connecting the Southern and Western interests, strengthening the bonds
of union and thereby perpetuating all the blessings of our valuable
institutions.[95]

But with the death of Horry in 1834, the project seems to have
slumbered until, in October, 1835, a well thought out statement,
emanating from a group of citizens of Ohio, one of whom was General
Harrison, brought the matter up again,[96] and on July 4th, 1836,
delegates from Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee, at Knoxville, launched the
Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston Railroad to connect the West and
South. Hayne became President of the company and Calhoun a Director.
From the outset, however, Calhoun was a continually disturbing element.
He was never able to shake off the view that railroads, if not adjuncts
to water courses, would be failures. It was a natural view in his day,
if it was an ignorant one, and one honestly held; but it was injurious
to the enterprise.

His known distrust of the route through North Carolina chilled the
enthusiasm of the people of North Carolina.[97] He deserted the South
Carolina Company at the most critical time, when the prospects of
the rival enterprise through Georgia seemed fairest. His powerful
obstructive force arrested the Carolina road at Columbia, by a
declaration pertinaciously sought to be made in advance that it should
not go further[98] and by so doing diverted to the “rival system”
in Georgia, funds in South Carolina which most materially aided
in preserving the Georgia venture from utter failure, when it had
collapsed, with unaccounted funds, to the extent of $2,602,457,26;[99]
while his sadly triumphant designation of Hayne’s road as an ended
“humbug,” one year after Hayne’s death, when it was at last determined
that it should not go beyond Columbia, has been accepted at its face
value by those more inclined to believe it, than to take the trouble to
examine the facts.

Yet Calhoun, himself, although he survived Hayne eleven years, died
before the “rival system” was assured; and nine years after his own
death, when, as yet, no great benefits to South Carolina trade had
accrued from the construction of the Georgia road, a vigorous attempt
was made to resurrect the French Broad route, with a declaration
that only the gap from Spartanburg, South Carolina, to Paint Rock,
on the Tennessee-North Carolina line, remained to be closed, C. G.
Memminger, in opposing the resurrection of the L. C. & C. R. R., made
the statement concerning it, that “it had been the mother of all
our interior railroads, and had not cost the State a dollar of her
money.”[100]

If such a statement could be made in 1858 by one who, while he had
materially assisted it up to 1839, had then opposed it, it may be well
to consider how the scheme was regarded in Europe, at the date at
which Mr. Memminger led the movement for the stopping it at Columbia,
evidently so as to concentrate all effort on the route through Georgia.

In the work of Alexander Trotter, of London, England, published in
1839, appears three allusions to Hayne’s Western road. One in the
general discussion of conditions in the United States at large; one in
the chapter treating of the State of South Carolina; and one in that
discussing Ohio. The first is as follows:

 “Besides the outlet for their produce which the Ohio and Mississippi
 afford to cultivators, the State of Pennsylvania has established a
 communication on the former river by a series of canals and railroads,
 and has opened to them the market of the Atlantic cities. The State of
 New York, by means of the Erie Canal, has procured for them a similar
 advantage at a port more to the North, while a still more gigantic
 undertaking than either of these works is now in progress to connect
 the city of Cincinnati with Charleston, which will bring the products
 of these distant lands to the markets of the Southern Atlantic
 States.”[101]

In that portion of his work which treats of South Carolina, Mr. Trotter
enters more particularly into the plan of the connection:

 “The work contemplated by this company (The Louisville, Cincinnati and
 Charleston Railroad) is the establishment of a railroad communication
 between the city of Charleston and the Ohio. The distance between
 Charleston and Cincinnati in a straight line, is about five hundred
 miles. Several routes have been surveyed by which the length of the
 railroad will be about six hundred, but no line seems to have been
 definitely fixed upon. A railroad called the South Carolina, already
 exists between Charleston and Hamburg, a town situated on the Savannah
 opposite to Augusta, in Georgia, this railroad has been purchased by
 the company, and will be made use of as far as Branchville or Aiken.
 One plan is to carry the road projected from the former to Columbia,
 the seat of Government in South Carolina, and then up the valley of
 the Broad river into the State of North Carolina. After surmounting
 the Blue Ridge by inclined planes with stationary engines, the road
 would by this plan, be carried down the valley of the French Broad
 River to Knoxville, in Tennessee, and thence through Cumberland Gap,
 to Lexington in Kentucky; from the latter city separate roads would
 proceed to Louisville, Cincinnati and Mayesville. The distance from
 Charleston to Cincinnati by this route would be 607 miles.”[102]

Alluding to the Georgia route, he indicates the first as likely the
route to be decided upon finally, and in the remarkably accurate map,
for that date, shows that the line through North Carolina, is shorter
by something like a fifth of the distance and that “the success of
the South Carolina Railroad holds out a fair prospect for that of the
greater work” as it—

 “although thus successful had to contend with great disadvantages;
 it was not only the first railroad attempted in the Southern States,
 but was at the time it was completed the longest railroad that had
 been constructed in any part of the world ... so that the projectors
 could derive little benefit from the experience of other works of a
 similar nature—the whole work too, which is a singular circumstance,
 was executed by the black population. In addition to these drawbacks,
 the limited means of the company caused the work to be executed
 in a very imperfect manner.... The original cost of the road was
 $904,500.00 but the filling up of the spaces between the piles and
 other expenses increased the cost up to the 31st of October 1834 to
 $1,336,615.09. The present company have almost reconstructed the whole
 work; two-thirds of the purchase money which has been paid, together
 with the expenses which have already been incurred, having amounted to
 nearly two million of dollars.”[103]

Georgia had started its system from a point afterwards becoming
Atlanta, towards which two roads were pointing, one from Augusta about
due west and another from Savannah northwest to Macon, from which by
an inclination north it moved towards the same point.

Hayne’s review of the commercial situation in the spring of 1838
indicated how clearly he grasped the fact that the revision of the
tariff had failed to cure the conditions under which the South labored;
for exporting more than a sixth of the total exports of the country,
the three States of Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia imported less
than one fortieth. If the South could only have been made to see it
before the opportunity passed. His comment put it fairly:

 “Look at the present course of trade between the South and the West.
 The importations from Tennessee and Kentucky into South Carolina and
 Georgia amount to millions of dollars, but instead of their being paid
 for in foreign goods imported directly into Charleston and Savannah
 in exchange for our own cotton and rice, we pay for them in gold or
 silver or in bills upon the North, thereby losing entirely the profits
 on the importation and greatly embarrassing our merchants by the
 operation. Now if we only had the means of transporting these goods
 by railroad to the West, everything would be changed. Not only would
 we pay for Western production consumed by the South, in foreign goods
 received in exchange for our own produce, but we should be able to
 supply a large portion of the Western country with all the goods now
 obtained by them from abroad, receiving in exchange their products to
 be distributed in Southern ships throughout the world. The truth is
 that all our efforts to establish a direct trade with Europe must in a
 great measure be unavailing unless we can provide a market in the West
 for the goods we may import. Our railroad with the aid of the South
 Western Railroad Bank, will achieve for us this important and peaceful
 victory.”[104]

But Kentucky and Tennessee did not constitute all that the railroad
to Cincinnati led to. The description given by the English student of
American affairs in 1839, shows what Ohio was at that date:

 “Of the 75 counties of which it is composed, 14 lie upon the Ohio
 River, which in its windings bounds the State for 436 miles; while
 seven which border on Lake Erie possess a coast of upwards of 200
 miles in extent. The great works which have been described, and others
 the result of private enterprise, have given almost equal advantage
 to the interior districts. Canals now made or making pass through 32
 counties, railroads through six, and macadamized roads through five,
 so that of the 75 counties into which the State is divided, there are
 only 11 which do not benefit from either natural or improved means
 of communication, and many even of these are traversed or bounded
 by rivers of inferior magnitude. While its natural advantages and
 the industry of its inhabitants have thus secured for this State
 the benefits of an easy internal communication, its position is
 no less favorable for external commerce. The Ohio River affords
 a direct communication with all the country in the valley of the
 Mississippi, which requires much of its agricultural produce and of
 its manufactures while by means of Lake Erie, which has several good
 natural or artificial harbors, it communicates with Canada and New
 York on the one side and with the country of the upper lakes on the
 other.... When the communication is complete between the Ohio and
 Pennsylvania lines, and still more when the railroad is finished which
 is meant to connect Cincinnati with Charleston, in South Carolina, an
 additional stimulus will be given to the industry of the State. The
 completion of the latter work, by the importance it will confer on
 Cincinnati, is scarcely of less interest to Ohio than it is to the
 States whose territories it traverses.”[105]

It was from Ohio in 1835 that the movement had come headed by General
Harrison, for railroad connection with South Carolina. We have
discussed commercial conditions. What of political? Professor Paxson
says:

 “The Southern counties of the old Northwest were never unanimous
 for slavery, but they were thoroughly impregnated with the ideals
 of the South before the Northern tier of counties had been surveyed
 or cleared of Indians. North of the National Road (from Wheeling to
 Columbus, Indianapolis, Vandalia and St. Louis) roughly speaking, was
 the zone of the Erie Canal—by 1840 a new New England stood rival to a
 northern South within the three oldest States of the old Northwest.
 For another twenty years, from the election of Harrison to that of
 Lincoln, the political future of the section was indeterminate.”[106]

But in 1835 Calhoun had been convinced that the movement of population
and industry was towards Arkansas,[107] and that consequently “we
should look much further West than Cincinnati or Lexington”.[108] This
he announced in his letter to Hayne resigning from his position as one
of the directors of the Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston Railroad
in 1838.

On what did he base the view? The Census figures of 1830 as compared
with those of 1820 indicated that the increase of population of
Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, were all greater than the increase in
Arkansas, even if the increase of Ohio’s 581,295 to 937,903 was not
as great a percentage of increase as that of Arkansas from 14,314, to
33,388 in the same period. Nevertheless at the time when the road was
determined to be stopped at Columbia, South Carolina, in favor of
the movement to be worked out through Georgia to Arkansas, the white
population of Ohio was 1,502,122, the colored 17,345. At the same date
the white population of Arkansas was 77,174, the colored 20,865. If it
be claimed that north of Arkansas was Missouri with a white population
of 323,888 and a colored population of 61,388; yet, if we took the
three States just north of Kentucky and across the Ohio River and the
State of Michigan just beyond, we will know that the region which
held 2,864,634 whites and 29,483 colored was abandoned to build to a
region inhabited by 401,662 whites and 82,253 colored persons. Was
this a reasonable commercial movement? If it was not, what was it? An
attempt will be made to answer these two questions in the two following
chapters, which attempt should open with some description of railroad
movement in the North and West.


FOOTNOTES:

[82] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 348.

[83] Ibid. p. 349.

[84] Ibid. p. 22.

[85] Ibid. p. 502.

[86] Census, U. S. 1850, p. 185.

[87] Ibid. p. 185.

[88] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 122.

[89] Ibid. p. 208.

[90] Ibid. p. 458.

[91] Ibid. p. 401.

[92] A. E. Miller, Pub. 1833, Address by Horry p. 31.

[93] Ibid. pp. 34-35.

[94] _Charleston Mercury_, November 25, 1833.

[95] A. E. Miller, Pub. 1833, Address by Horry, p. 21.

[96] _Charleston Courier_, Oct. 8, 1835.

[97] Ibid, Dec. 18, 1839.

[98] _Charleston Mercury_, Aug. 16, 1839.

[99] Phillips, Transportation Eastern Cotton Belt, p. 316.

[100] W. E. Cog. Pub. Address Memminger, Vol. XXI Pam. C. L. S. p. 9.

[101] Trotter: Finances, North American States, p. 61.

[102] Ibid. p. 223.

[103] Ibid. p. 226.

[104] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 457.

[105] Trotter: Finances, North American States, p. 277.

[106] Paxson, Early Railroads of the Old Northwest, p. 254.

[107] _Charleston Courier_, Nov. 9, 1835.

[108] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, pp. 411-412.




CHAPTER VI


Realizing what a great benefit the Erie Canal had been to New York, by
1834, Pennsylvania had connected Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by canals,
the greater part of which had been completed by 1832;[109] but with the
revision of the tariff of 1833, so injurious to her, as has been shown,
she bent every effort to supplement her waterways with railroads, and,
by 1835, there were some 200 miles of railroads in the State.[110] The
bulk of these it is true were coal roads, but by 1839, a railroad had
been completed from Philadelphia to Columbia (Pa.) 82 miles in length,
and there was in process of construction 41¾ miles additional in a
southwestwardly direction to Gettysburg.[111] Philadelphia also had a
railroad connection with New York to the North and Baltimore to the
South.

In New York by 1836, railroad communication between Albany and Utica
was open for traffic,[112] and work was being pushed on the Erie
railroad, starting from lower down on the Hudson towards Lake Erie.

In Maryland, the Baltimore and Ohio, begun about the same time as
the Charleston and Hamburg, but, not as soon used for steam power
operation, had by 1834 reached Harper’s Ferry, 82 miles.[113] There
it connected by a viaduct over the Potomac River, with the Winchester
Railroad, which by 1839, ran down the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
for 30 miles. A branch to Washington, some 33 miles in length,
connected with the Richmond and Potomac Railroad[114] 70 miles in
length, opened for traffic in 1836.[115] From Richmond, south, ran
the Richmond and Petersburg Railroad, in process of construction, and
from Petersburg to Blakely, in North Carolina, complete, by 1839, to
Wilmington by 1840.[116]

By 1842 the New York Central reached Buffalo, while, at the same time,
Boston linked up with Albany.

The above vindicates the warning which Hayne issued to the people of
South Carolina in 1835, upon the call from Ohio for Southern railroad
connection, viz., that “New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore
were moving for what was offered Charleston.”[117] In 1838 he declared
to the people of Charleston:

 “If after all we have said and done, we should falter in our course,
 our sister cities will very soon establish these connections, by which
 our doom will be sealed, and we shall deserve our fate.”[118]

To the people of South Carolina he said:

 “It is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that South Carolina
 is destined to sink down from her high and palmy state of prosperity
 ... unless her sons shall avail themselves of the present favorable
 opportunity.”[119]

Six months later, when striving to induce Calhoun to reconsider his
announced resignation from the Directorship of the L. C. & C. Co., he
admitted:

 “Should your influence be thrown against us, our whole project in all
 its parts may fail.”—

But he also warned him, with true prophetic power, that cooperation
with those he was deserting was: “the only plan, be assured, by which
ever your views can be affected.”[120] Set and hardened in his views,
Calhoun refused to be influenced by any argument, threw his influence
against the plan, and considered the stopping of Hayne’s road at
Columbia, one year after Hayne’s death, a personal triumph.[121] He
thus destroyed the plan of a connection with Cincinnati, to which from
the outset he had been opposed, although in veiled phrases,[122] on
account of his determination to secure the combination of political
and commercial benefits, which he was convinced must flow from a
railroad across Tennessee to Arkansas. It is true that at the time of
his resignation from the Carolina enterprise, 2000 men were at work
on the line from Atlanta to Chattanooga, and expectation keen that by
the fall of 1839, one hundred of the 138 miles would be finished; but
without a precise statement of account to indicate how the expenditure
of $2,602,457.26 had been incurred,[123] this work was suspended in
1841, without even the laying of the iron; which suspension stopped
as well the Georgia and the Georgia Central with 88 and 95 miles
respectively from Augusta and Savannah, with some sixty miles still
intervening between their most extended work and the southern point
in this link of their chain to the West. It also stopped work from
Nashville down towards the Northern point at Chattanooga. The
suspension occurred just two years after the death of Hayne, and but
one after the persistent resolve to stop work on the South Carolina
Road at Columbia and dissolve the relations between it and Tennessee
and North Carolina had been affected. To those who had effected this
disastrous result it, therefore, became absolutely essential to push
the Georgia road on to completion; which was effected by 1845.

[Illustration: U.S. 1840

WHITES

WHITES & BLACKS

NEGROES

RAILWAYS COMPLETED

PROJECTED]

“New subscriptions from Charleston and Augusta to the stock of the
company, it seems, were largely responsible for the hastening of the
road to completion”;[124] but what portion of the cost, $3,328,594, was
borne by the contributors from South Carolina does not clearly appear.
What is known, however, is that General Gadsden, who owed his elevation
to the presidency of the South Carolina Railroad to the powerful
assistance of Calhoun, contemporaneously with the completion of the
Georgia Railroad in 1845, wrote to Calhoun urging him to attend the
railroad convention to be held at Memphis the same year, declaring in
his letter:

 “We are on the eve of realizing all our fond hopes and expectations of
 1836 ... Now is the time to meet our Western friends at Memphis—to set
 the ball in motion which will bring the valley to the South.”[125]

From 1836 to 1838, Calhoun was a director in the South Carolina
enterprise, Gadsden its most inveterate foe.[126]

F. H. Elmore was more definite in his endorsement of the road to
Memphis. He wrote Calhoun:

 “A railroad communication based at Memphis, in a slave region and
 extended direct to Charleston, passing through the most martial
 portion of our people, and who have, as at present situated, the least
 interest of all the South in slavery, would render their relations
 with us at Charleston and Memphis so intimate and advantageous that
 their interests and ours would be indissolubly united. They would be
 to us a source of strength, power and safety, and render the South
 invulnerable.”[127]

Of course it was not only possible, but not at all improbable, that
in pressing the original route along the line from Charleston to
Cincinnati, free labor might have injured the institution of slavery
in South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee, even more than
familiarity with it might have softened the feelings of the inhabitants
of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois towards slavery. But whichever way it
worked, it must have knit more firmly together the sections, by the
identity of thought, which would have made itself felt with closer
commercial intercourse. What Elmore hoped to sustain in 1845, Conner
saw beginning to crumble in 1849, for he writes Calhoun at that date:

 “The cities all of them are becoming daily more and more unsound, and
 all for the same reason. The infusion of Northerners and foreigners
 amongst them. And their interest is being felt in the interior. The
 draymen and laborers of New Orleans are all white and foreigners,
 and they will not let a Negro drive a dray. He would be mobbed or
 killed. The steamboats all employ white servants, and their captains
 are mostly Northerners, and the issue of Free Labor against Slave
 Labor will soon be made at the South. Our own people many of them are
 desponding. They begin to think that the institution of Slavery is
 doomed.”[128]

In the light of this letter in 1849, we may well ponder what might not
have been accomplished for peace had not what might have become a great
artery of trade between Cincinnati and Charleston been so recklessly
cut in 1840. It is hardly possible to doubt, that in the cutting,
commercial conditions were made absolutely subservient to political in
the cultivated growth concerning the Institution in which the disciples
were continually forging ahead of the masters and teachers.

In 1846 Calhoun had suggested, to J. H. Hammond, the propriety of
eulogizing Rev. Henry Bascomb for his vindication of the South on the
occasion of the division of the Methodists, and Hammond had replied at
some length with a declination. Calhoun’s rejoinder is of some interest:

 “I concur in the opinion that we ought to take the highest ground on
 the subject of African Slavery, as it exists among us, and have from
 the first acted accordingly; but we must not break with or throw off
 those who are not prepared to come up to our standard, especially on
 the exterior limits of the slave holding States. I look back with
 pleasure to the progress which sound principles have made within the
 past ten years in respect to the relations between the two races. All,
 with a very few exceptions, defended it a short time since on the
 ground of a necessary evil to be got rid of as soon as possible. South
 Carolina was not much sounder 20 years ago than Kentucky now is and I
 cannot but think the course the Western Baptist and Methodists took in
 reference to the division of their churches has done much to expel C.
 Clay and correct public opinion in that quarter.”[129]

Now if we go back twenty years from this expression of Calhoun’s, we
will be within one year of the date of Hayne’s great speech in the
United States Senate of 1827. In the twenty years, as well as can be
arrived at, the whites had increased to the extent of about fifty per
cent, the Negroes to the extent of about sixty per cent. Apparently he
had expected too much. The increase rate of the whites had not been
as great as that of the Negroes, no matter what were the causes, and
with the increase, the estimate of the Institution increased. In the
light of these facts it is scarcely surprising that in 1848, although
railroads from Columbia to two points on the North Carolina line,
were again under way, and an application for a charter for a third,
along Hayne’s route to Spartanburg, pending, the City of Charleston
was induced to give $500,000 to complete the railroad from Nashville
to Chattanooga, in spite of the protest[130] of some of the citizens
of Charleston, that it was not right to use corporate funds for work
outside of the State, and even if it was, it was not expedient to do
so, as long as Augusta refused, as she was then refusing, to permit a
bridge to be built across the Savannah River at the terminus of the
Hamburg road, by which alone the South Carolina Railroad could connect
with the Georgia system.

Upon Calhoun’s return from the trip to the West which had been urged
upon him by the president of the South Carolina Railroad, Gadsden,
he expressed himself to his son-in-law, Clemson, as satisfied with
his reception in Memphis and elsewhere; but he could hardly have been
pleased at the tone taken by Gadsden very shortly after with regard to
the tariff.

Mention has previously been made with regard to what is herein
considered Calhoun’s failure in 1833 to cope successfully with Clay;
but the very slight gains then secured were wiped out in a new tariff
in 1842. In 1846, being free from the terrific responsibilities and
overshadowing dangers of Nullification, Calhoun secured legislation,
which seems in its workings to have balanced very satisfactorily the
imports and exports of the country, being apparently passed upon the
sound principles of Lowndes’s legislation. But the effort drew from
Gadsden’s swollen greatness, this insolent characterization of the main
creator of it:

 “The passage of the tariff has pleased, but not satisfied us. Perhaps
 it was the best terms which at this crisis could be got, and doing
 away with the minimums and the _ad valorem_ duty is a point gained.
 The valuation is ambiguous. Whether on the foreign or the home
 we cannot understand. The bill may be construed either way. The
 Pennsylvanians really seem to control you.”[131]

The conclusion must have been galling, and it was followed in 1847 with
another letter in which, with professions of devotion, it was intimated
that General Taylor’s candidacy for the Presidency would be a serious
impediment to the only kind of candidacy Calhoun could undertake.
Whether Mr. Gadsden received the early answer he requested on the
ground “that the concert of action may be certain to secure the triumph
of one, who will not court our influence to deceive,”[132] does not
appear; but the next year there was a strong movement, led by George
A. Trenholm of Charleston, to oust Gadsden from the presidency of the
railroad, and in the last two years of his life, Calhoun’s intimacy
with Gadsden is not evidenced by any correspondence. Rather it was upon
Hammond that he leant more and more and it was to him that he addressed
the last letter written to any one beyond the immediate circle of his
own hearthstone.

To Hammond the dying statesman turned with a confidence calculated to
inspire the latter’s belief in himself:

 “Without flattery I know of no one better informed than you are on the
 subject that now agitates the country, or more capable of deciding
 what should be done, with the knowledge you would acquire of the state
 of things here or of preparing whatever papers the Convention may
 think proper to put out.... Never before has the South been placed in
 so trying a situation, nor can it ever be placed in one more so. Her
 all is at stake.”[133]

The convention was the Nashville Convention of 1850, which met a
few months after Calhoun’s death. Hammond and many others hoped to
have had Calhoun’s advice at it, and possibly the suggestion for a
new Constitution framed by Calhoun. They believed emancipation was
impending, and that with it the South would be reduced to the condition
of Hayti. Hammond had declared to Calhoun:

 “We must act now and decisively.... If we do not act now, we
 deliberately consign, not our posterity, but our children to the
 flames. What a holocaust for us to place upon the alter of that union
 for which the South and West have had such a bigoted and superstitious
 veneration.”[134]

The brilliant follower had passed quite beyond his leader. The orator
who eight years later defiantly declared in the United States Senate,
“Cotton is King,” tersely states in this letter his political creed,
viz., that:

 “The fundamental object of government is to secure the fruits of labor
 and skill—that is to say property, and that its forms must be moulded
 upon the social organizations. Life and liberty will then be secured,
 for these are naturally under the guardianship of society and that
 civilization which is the fruit of its progress. ‘Free government’ and
 all that sort of thing has been, I think, a fatal delusion and humbug
 from the time of Moses. Freedom does not spring from government, but
 from the same soil which produces government itself, and all that we
 want from that is a guarantee for property fairly acquired.”[135]

His conclusion was: “If leaders will only lead, neither they nor we
have anything to fear.”

Property is said to be proverbially timid, and the powers of finance
to dread war and its confusion; but Hammond’s conclusion was identical
with that if the greatest banker of Charleston, of that day, who in the
previous year had informed Calhoun after an extended journey, that the
South was “ready to act.”[136]

With Calhoun’s death, however, the party of action was without any
recognized head. There was no South Carolinian, who could in 1850 take
his place without question, and accordingly by 1852, the leadership of
the South passed to Georgia from South Carolina, and to some extent
it did so pass from and through the blind efforts of the Titan of
South Carolina to mould all things to his will; for it was through
Calhoun to a considerable extent, that Georgia had secured and waxed
fat upon the great railroad up into Tennessee and to the West. As
soon as the Western and Atlantic, from Atlanta, reached Chattanooga,
meeting there in 1851, the road from Nashville, which ran some 35
miles from Chattanooga towards the West, another subscription was
secured from Charleston,[137] for a road thence to that point on the
Mississippi river opposite Arkansas, although, in this instance,
with some glimmer of sense, it was conditioned upon the removal of
the obstruction caused by the city of Augusta’s refusal to permit a
bridge from the South Carolina shore across the Savannah river, by
which alone connection with the railroad beyond could be made from
South Carolina. But it was only, when, in despair of accomplishing
this bridging of the Savannah river in 1852,[138] $500,000 was given
to aid in pushing the South Carolina road on from Anderson, S. C., to
Knoxville, Tennessee, that then, by purchase from Augusta, the right
to bridge the Savannah river and connect with the Georgia Railroad was
obtained; so that, in the end, some hundred or more miles of railroad
had to be built beyond Columbia in South Carolina, merely to secure
the connection with the Georgia road in 1853, for which Hayne’s great
road had been stopped at Columbia in 1840. But by 1853, the futility
of any hope of great benefit to South Carolina trade from the Georgia
connection having possessed the minds of those directing affairs in
South Carolina, $500,000 from Charleston and $1,000,000[139] from the
State was granted to promote the second of the two routes with which
Calhoun had obstructed the French Broad Railway from its inception. For
five years, with repeated disasters, the construction of this second
string to the bow of Calhoun, was energetically pushed, with the vain
hope of securing for South Carolina, at that late day, what had been
thrown away eighteen years earlier in blind obedience to a great man’s
imperious dictation. And it was in asking for an additional $1,000,000
from the State and resisting the arguments concerning the resurrection
of the French Broad route that Mr. Memminger, later Secretary of the
Treasury of Confederate States, declared of Hayne’s railroad:

 “Although that great work was abandoned from causes beyond our
 control, yet it has been the mother of all our interior railroads and
 has not cost the State a single dollar of her money.”[140]

If there was anything which could have been said to have further
accentuated the fatal folly of the abandonment of this great enterprise
in favor of the attempted junction with the Georgia roads in 1840 and a
route to Arkansas instead of Ohio, it was epitomized unconsciously by
the same speaker, Mr. Memminger, at the same time in 1858, in the same
speech, from which the above extract was taken:

 “The two roads to the West, which have been assisted by Charleston
 are the Memphis and the Nashville Railroads.... We hoped that they
 would bring trade to the city, but it finds a cheaper outlet by the
 Mississippi river.”[141]

One word more with regard to the cost of this road, which if it had
not been stopped at Columbia, might possibly have prevented the war
between the States. In the three years from 1836 to 1839 the old
Hamburg Railroad, run down and out of condition, had been purchased and
put into such order as to raise the receipts from it fifty per cent,
by 1839. Seventeen miles had been built on the fork to Columbia from
Branchville, with preparations so well forward that to the $1,858,772
spent on the 153 miles, $584,304 additional, it was estimated, would
enable the remaining 48 to be completed in a year to Columbia, with
about $1,300,000 additional to be spent to reach the North Carolina
line by 1846, when the total expenditure of the road from Charleston
to Augusta and from Branchville through Columbia to the North Carolina
line via Spartanburg, would have reached $3,743,076. At that point
$1,102,600 pledged by North Carolina and Tennessee would have been
obtained, which with the work done and prepared for was all lost by the
stoppage at Columbia. Yet nine years after Hayne’s death, 1848, the
report of the president of the South Carolina Railroad, James Gadsden,
shows $5,546,735.48[142] spent in securing only an additional 51 miles
of roadway.


FOOTNOTES:

[109] Trotter, Finances of the North American States p. 163.

[110] Hadley, Railroad Transportation, p. 33, _et seq._

[111] Trotter, Finances North American States, p. 165.

[112] Hadley, Railroad Transportation, p. 33, _et seq._

[113] Trotter, Finances North American States, p. 165.

[114] Ibid. p. 211.

[115] Ibid. p. 212.

[116] Ibid.

[117] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 388.

[118] Ibid. p. 459.

[119] Courier, March 13th, 1838.

[120] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 477.

[121] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 464.

[122] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 470.

[123] Phillips, Transportation in Eastern Cotton Belt, p. 316.

[124] Ibid. p. 242.

[125] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 1062.

[126] Courier, Dec. 18th, 1839.

[127] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 1060.

[128] Ibid. p. 1188.

[129] Ibid. p. 672.

[130] Pamphlet, C. L. S. Vol. VIII. Art. 7, p. 6.

[131] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 1085.

[132] Ibid. p. 1148.

[133] Ibid. p. 782.

[134] Ibid. p. 1210.

[135] Ibid. p. 1210.

[136] Ibid. p. 1188.

[137] Pamphlet, C. L. S. Vol. VII. Art. 7. p. 16.

[138] Ibid. p. 19.

[139] Pamphlet, Vol. II, C. L. S. Miller, p. 6.

[140] Pamphlet, Vol. XXI. Memminger, C. L. S. p. 9.

[141] Ibid. p. 23.

[142] Pamphlet, Vol. V. C. L. S. Art. 18, p. 18.




CHAPTER VII


The school of Georgia politicians in 1852 did not favor Secession.
Their objection to it was that it would so reduce the value of slaves
as to force the owners to emancipate them themselves; while, with the
preservation of the Union, they believed they could force slavery to
the Pacific.

Certainly Georgia was in many respects amply fitted to lead. By the
census of 1850 it was disclosed that in the value of her personal
property, returned for taxation, she led the Union with $213,499,486.
Twelve million more than the old and wealthy State of Massachusetts,
which returned $201,976,892. South Carolina came third with
$178,130,217. Alabama fourth with $162,463,700. New York fifth with
$150,719,379.[143]

In the value of their real estate, which could not be as well concealed
as their personal property, the Northern States stood out richer, so
that in her revenue, Georgia stood not higher than seventh, among the
States of the Union; but, when revenue, expenditure and debt were
considered together, no State in the Union was apparently in such an
eminently sound and healthy condition; for, with her surplus, she could
have extinguished her debt in five years.

Of course that which made the personal property returned for taxation
by the residents of the Southern States, stand out so greatly in excess
of that of the richer States of the North was the fact that the bulk
of it was in slaves. But that fact reveals why the institution of
slavery had such a hold upon the South, when not more than ten per cent
of its inhabitants were slave holders. If the statesmen and politicians
who supported and defended it demanded “a guarantee for property fairly
acquired,” that property bore the bulk of the tax. That was not the
condition of the North, and the vice of the more advanced civilization
of that section was that, by every device which could be conceived,
more and more the burden of taxation was thrown upon the poor.[144]

While not to the swollen condition that is apparent today, the North
was, for thirty years and more prior to the War between the States, the
land of the capitalist, the abode of American capital.

How far the determination of Northern capital to keep the South
financially tributary to it was responsible for the rapid railroad
development of the North and West, it will require much investigation
to disclose. Whether, with a higher and nobler personnel among its
leaders and greater regard for the toiling masses of its white
population, it could have prepared the way so thoroughly for the
conquest of the South is doubtful; but having been stricken a blow,
even if a weak one, by the tariff of 1833, with a home valuation it had
parried the blow and sustained itself on the increased import trade
until it could enact the tariff of 1842; and when that was replaced
by Calhoun’s tariff of 1846, marshalling its industrial dependents,
it reached out with splendid energy, with one hand grasping the South
and the other the West and bound them both to its girdle with bands of
steel.

We have seen what was attempted in the South in the political
commercial effort to stretch from the Atlantic to Arkansas, after the
abandonment of the movement to Cincinnati in 1840. Now reverting to
the West, we find that in Ohio, part of the Cincinnati, Sandusky and
Cleveland Railroad was built in 1837; but it was not until 1848 that it
was completed.[145]

In Kentucky, of the 97 miles projected, by 1839, there were in
operation from Lexington to Frankfort, on one end, 28 miles; from
Louisville to Portland on the other end, 3 miles.[146] But within nine
years from the time at which the Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston
Railroad was stopped at Columbia, a railroad extended from Detroit
across lower Michigan, and by 1851, Cleveland and Pittsburgh were
connected by rail; while a second line from Toledo below Detroit,
paralleled the road from Detroit to the lower end of Lake Michigan.
By 1853, down from Lake Michigan to the junction of the Missouri
and Mississippi rivers, a line continued these two from Toledo and
Detroit; while from Cleveland a network of roads reached Indianapolis,
sending out from that city a line West to Terre Haute and one North to
Lake Michigan. By 1857 this had become a perfect mesh of railroads,
crossing and recrossing Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and reaching up
into Wisconsin, while three constituent roads stretched across from the
North Atlantic Coast to the Mississippi River opposite Missouri.

The situation with regard to population was about as follows at this
period: The three States mentioned above contained about 4,500,000
white inhabitants, which the population of Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa
raised to about 6,000,000. Behind them were banked some 11,000,000
whites in New York, Pennsylvania and New England.

Meanwhile, to the Nashville Convention of 1850, South Carolina had sent
a representative, who might have been considered a leaf from her great
past, Langdon Cheves and against the independent secession of South
Carolina, he strove successfully.

Mr. G. M. Pinckney, the most sympathetic of all Calhoun’s biographers,
thus sums up the situation in 1850:

 “If Mr. Calhoun had lived a little longer, it seems highly probable
 that history would have been different. He certainly would have forced
 matters to head at this session, and at this time, had the South taken
 definite action it seems probable that there was left genuine love
 enough for the Union on all sides to save it. To delay ten years was
 necessarily fatal. Every moment lost but added fuel to the kindling
 flame of sectional hatred. Mr. Calhoun’s death was a stunning blow.
 The South fell into confusion. Delay resulted and natural causes
 taking their course produced natural results.”[147]

Professor Paxson’s view of the situation for the same time seems
somewhat in accord with the above:

 “Had the secession movement of 1850 grown into war, none of these
 factors (i. e. railroads) would have been effective, and success for
 separation could hardly have been questioned. But in 1860 secession
 came too late. The Northwest was crossed and recrossed by an intricate
 entanglement of tracks.”[148]

Such a coincidence of view in such widely separated quarters is
entitled to the highest respect; but it is not the view entertained
by the writer of this work, to whom 1850 seems to have been too late
to affect the situation favorably for secession, even if Calhoun had
survived; for, judged by his career, it is exceedingly doubtful if he
would have forced matters to a head. It would not have been in accord
with his past. He was a great parliamentarian and an even greater
debater; but all through his career his hand had been forced. He was
never quite ready for the situation as it developed. It may have been
greatly to his credit and consistent with his views; but he always
consulted and pondered. His political methods so disclose him. McDuffie
forced his hand with regard to Nullification. Clay forced his hand with
regard to the tariff of 1833. For Rhett’s resolution of 1838, he was
not ready, although that was the logical time and the logical course.

Those who feel, that for this great Republic a world task was and is
reserved, may rejoice that no effort to secede was moved in 1838, but
that does not effect the question of its possible success had it been
attempted. Conditions in South Carolina were very much confused by
Calhoun’s death. To supply his place in the United States Senate,
Governor Seabrook first appointed F. H. Elmore and, upon his death
in a month or two, Robert W. Barnwell, but upon the meeting of the
General Assembly of South Carolina, six months later, that body elected
R. Barnwell Rhett, who, for about a year and a quarter, strove for
the accomplishment of the policy of secession and failing, resigned
and gave way to W. F. DeSaussure, apparently in accord with the
Georgia policy of pushing slavery to the Pacific, within the Union,
and in the wake of Georgia, South Carolina moved until 1860, when her
representatives again took the initiative with the full approval of the
leaders of the Empire State of the South.[149]

For the carrying into effect, in 1850, of the Georgia scheme of pushing
slavery to the Pacific there were in Missouri 592,004 whites, in
Arkansas 163,189, and in Kentucky and Tennessee 1,518,247, to which
the entire South remaining could add 3,422,923, and even if Arkansas
had doubled her white population since 1840, the 450,000 whites with
which Ohio’s population had been increased in the same time, put in
that State one-tenth of the total white population of the Union, which,
with that with which Indiana and Illinois disposed of in about the same
space as Kentucky and Tennessee below, furnished fully two and a half
times as many to draw upon. It should have been apparent, therefore,
that it would take all that the South could do to hold Missouri, much
less invade the further Northwest, even if Iowa, at that, time did
not have very many more white inhabitants than Arkansas. There was a
chance to have affected Ohio in 1840; but by 1855 the movement from
the East and the railroads had made it the powerful advanced outpost
of the Abolitionists. The ten years between 1838 and 1848 practically
determined the course of events, making more and more for war between
the slowly separating sections, and for the steadily increasing black
population of slaves in the South.

If it is true that:

 “Transportation, after all, has determined both the course and the
 period of Western development.”[150]

—the colonizing stream with which the great and populous State of
Ohio, from 1840 fecundated the prairies of the West might have
poured to a considerable extent into the valleys of the Blue Ridge,
the Alleghany and the Cumberland mountains along the lines of the
Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston Railroad to meet and mingle with
the stream which had been moving westward from South Carolina, since
1820.[151] In such a case the country might and in all probability
would have developed at a slower pace; but it would have been as a
more homogeneous people. It is idle to declare that there was an
irrepressible conflict. That has always been the claim of those who are
determined to precipitate such and are absolutely dead to—

 “the influence of a free, social and commercial intercourse, in
 softening asperities, removing prejudices, extending knowledge and
 promoting human happiness.”


FOOTNOTES:

[143] U. S. Census, 1850 p. 190.

[144] McMaster, The people of the United States, between 1854 and 1860,
Vol. VIII. Hanleiter, Speech Robert Harper, 1858.

[145] Paxson, Early Railways of Old Northwest, p. 255.

[146] Trotter, Finances of North American States, p. 244.

[147] Pinckney, Life of John C. Calhoun, p. 212.

[148] Paxson, Early Railways of Old Northwest, p. 266.

[149] Stephens, History of the United States, p. 561.

[150] Paxson, Early Railways of Old Northwest, p. 247.

[151] McCrady, History of S. C. Vol. I, p. 1.




CHAPTER VIII


The presidential election of 1852, tended at first to allay
excitement. A New Englander, affiliating closely with Southern men,
Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, won the Democratic nomination over
competitors much more prominent. Of these competitors Buchanan and
Cass had long and intimately been connected with the party leaders of
their States in the time of Andrew Jackson; trained in the old school
of politics; drawing what strength they had from faithful service. The
third competitor, a comparatively new leader in the West, forceful,
aggressive and impatient of restraint, Stephen A. Douglas, was of an
entirely different type. Determined to make a spoon or spoil a horn, he
evolved the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and with it soon had the
country in a turmoil.

The condition was strange. The Georgians had a policy and the lead of
a section, but no man among them possessed the qualities essential for
such a task, as their bold program of pushing slavery to the Pacific
within the Union, demanded. Howell Cobb approached nearer the station
of leader than any other man of his State; but he scarcely measured
up to what was required. Besides as great as Georgia was among the
Southern States, second only to Virginia, in point of population, and
quite beyond in wealth and resources, among the States of the Union,
in point of population, she barely ranked tenth. From the continuous
stream of white immigrants pouring into Illinois that great State was,
however, rapidly moving up to the position of fourth in population,
while in Stephen A. Douglas, she possessed one of the most audacious
and resourceful of politicians who had ever moved in the affairs of the
Union, to a great height. Carrying at his heels some forty-two Northern
votes in Congress, he appeared to be just the man the Georgians
needed, and accordingly in the Congress which met in December, 1853,
he introduced his bill for the organization of the territory of
Nebraska, framing the provisions thereof upon the precedents set in
the organization of the territories of Utah and New Mexico four years
before. Of this bill, a distinguished author, later president of the
United States, has said:

 “No bolder or more extraordinary measure had ever been proposed in
 Congress, and it came upon the country like a thief in the night,
 without warning or expectation, when parties were trying to sleep off
 the excitement of former debates about the extension of slavery.”[152]

Mr. Woodrow Wilson was of the opinion that Southern members had never
dreamed of demanding such a measure and that no one but Douglas, would
have dreamed of offering it to them; but yet he says the President had
been consulted and had given his approval to it, upon the ground that
“it was founded upon a sound principle which the compromise of 1820
had infringed upon.”[153] And certain it is that the President had
consulted, concerning it, that Southerner who was destined to occupy
the most prominent position ever held by a Southerner. Jefferson Davis
knew of it.

Of the author of the bill, Robert Toombs declared some seven years
later, with his characteristic exaggeration, that the Apostle Paul was
about his only superior as a leader. While Alexander H. Stephens, with
absolute devotion, clung to him, until secession swept them apart,
Toombs was less faithful. Forty-four Northern Democrats, and all but
nine of the Southern members of the House of Representatives, supported
the bill, and in the popular branch of Congress, it prevailed, by a
majority of thirteen votes; in the Senate, by a vote of nearly three
to one.[154] But Mr. Wilson declares that the Act contained a fatal
ambiguity. When was squatter sovereignty to give its decision on the
question of slavery?

Here was where the break came, when the Act was being tried out in
practical operation.

The Southern members thought that Douglas represented their view. Mr.
Davis, Secretary of War at the time of its introduction, distinctly
declares, that, at Douglas’s request, he obtained the interview between
Douglas’s committee and the President on Sunday, January 22, 1854, by
which the President’s approval was secured, and he avers, that from the
terms of the bill and arguments used in its support, he thought its
purpose was to open the territory “to the people of all the States with
every species of property recognized by any of them.”[155]

But Douglas was not simply leading the Southern minority. He was
endeavoring to formulate a policy by means of which he could yoke both
sections to his triumphal car, and he was just as ready to use the
Southerners, as they were to use him. When the Southerners found out
how he proposed to over-reach them, Alexander H. Stephens still clung
to him; but Toombs, less faithful, vociferated that he “didn’t have a
leg to stand upon.”

The truth was, compromise upon compromise had so involved the question,
that it was almost impossible to disentangle it without the use of the
sword.

In 1787 there had been a compromise, by which slavery and the slave
trade had been both recognized; and over the Missouri question in 1820,
the Southern States had had a perfect constitutional right to dissolve
the Union; but again compromise had been accepted.

The admission of California and the law of 1850 was a distinct breach
of the second compromise and the right to secede was just as clear, as
it had been in 1820; but the expediency of such action was nothing like
as clear. There was no great and towering personality around which men
could gather. Rhett’s resolution in Congress in 1838 was the logical
result of Calhoun’s teaching since 1833; but Calhoun was not ready
to act. If ever secession was a practical policy it was in 1838 as
presented by Rhett in Congress.[156]

In South Carolina in 1850, Calhoun was dead, and there was the view of
Rhett and the view of Cheves. In Georgia there was the view of Cobb and
the view of Toombs, and the view of Hill and the view of Stephens.

Of the man who did more than any other to arrest secession in 1850, we
know least, and what we do know does not help us to any great extent to
understand him. What policy Howell Cobb represented is not very clear.
He was strong enough to be denounced as a traitor by those who could
not drive him from their path, and somewhat in the same way that Hayne
was taken out of national politics, when State politics required a man
of unusual force, Cobb stepped down in 1852 from the high station of
Speaker of the House of Representatives, to become Governor of Georgia;
while in the last four years before secession, he was silenced by his
position in Buchanan’s Cabinet.

But apart from leaders the country had changed, and in spite of the
declarations to the contrary, in nowhere more than in the South.

The continual increase of the Negro population and the immense sums
invested in that species of property had worked a disintegration of
former views.

Nullification had accelerated the change, for the views of Hayne in
1827 and Calhoun in 1836, were certainly wide apart.

In 1845 Calhoun had congratulated Hammond on the progress of opinion in
the South to the high ground he had held in advance; but it may well
be doubted whether Calhoun, himself, would not have been startled by
the progress disclosed in 1855, as evinced by the agitation for the
re-opening of the slave trade.

In 1845 when Wise, then United States Minister to Brazil, disclosed
the manner of conducting the slave trade in that country, in which
both Englishmen and Americans were implicated, the President, in whose
cabinet Calhoun then was Secretary of State, condemned it without
stint, rejoicing that “our own coasts are free from its pollution”;
although he was forced to admit that there were “many circumstances to
warrant the belief that some of our citizens are deeply involved in its
guilt.”[157]

Calhoun’s criticism of Wise on this occasion was only that he feared he
was injudicious, and that his declarations might affect the relations
between Brazil and the United States.[158]

Certainly Calhoun was not the man to have favored what his chief styled
“pollution,” and to have remained in his cabinet.

Again, there is no reason to believe that Calhoun sympathized at all
with the ambitious scheme of forcing slavery to the Pacific. Whatever
may have been the merits or demerits of his policies, they were
strictly defensive, and he clung almost religiously to the phrase,
“slavery as it exists in the South.”

What that was, to some extent was disclosed by the committee on
religious instruction of the Negroes, which, in 1845 received reports
from all quarters of the South.

Robert Barnwell Rhett, was at the head of one of the principal
committees and among its members were D. E. Huger, Basil Gildersleeve,
Robert W. Barnwell and many others prominent in affairs of State and
matters of culture and religion in the South.

The account from Alabama of “the servant Ellis” is most interesting.
His blood and color, it was claimed were unmixed, and he gave much aid
in the meetings among the Negroes, though “more retiring and modest
than most people of his condition, when they have ability above their
fellows.”[159]

It is said he could read both Greek and Latin and was anxious to
undertake Hebrew; and the synods of Alabama and Mississippi proposed to
purchase him, in order to send him to Africa as a Missionary.

Conditions such as these reports revealed were absolutely ignored by
the fanatical Abolitionists of that day although they are but some
of the many indications how mild and humanizing slavery, as it then
existed in the South, was.

But the question was, could it so continue? And by 1855 there were
ominous signs of a change. Agitation began for the re-opening of the
slave trade.

What a frightful moral injury to the South this would have been, is
evidenced by the statement alone of those who advocated this course,
and at the same time had the courage to express their views on the
inadequacy of the laws then in existence for the proper protection of
those of the inferior race, who were then in the South, improved as
they had been by years of training.

In 1856, Governor James H. Adams, of South Carolina, had thus expressed
himself:

 “If we cannot supply the demand for slave labor, then we must expect
 to be supplied with a species of labor, we do not want, and which
 from the very nature of things is antagonistic to our institutions.
 It is much better that our drays should be driven by slaves—that our
 factories should be worked by slaves—that our hotels should be served
 by slaves—that our locomotives should be served by slaves, than that
 we should be exposed to the introduction, from any quarter, of a
 population alien to us by birth, training and education, and which, in
 the process of time, must lead to that conflict between capital and
 labor, which makes it so difficult to maintain free institutions in
 all wealthy and highly cultivated nations, where such institutions as
 ours do not exist.”

 In all slave holding States true policy dictates, that the superior
 race should direct, and the inferior perform all menial service.
 Competition between the white and the black man for this service may
 not disturb Northern sensibility, but it does not suit our latitude.
 Irrespective, however, of interest, the Act of Congress declaring the
 slave trade piracy, is a brand upon us, which I think it important
 to remove. If the trade be piracy, the slave must be plunder; and no
 ingenuity can avoid the logical necessity of such conclusion.

 My hopes and fortunes are indissolubly associated with this form
 of society. I feel that I should be wanting in duty, if I did not
 urge you to withdraw your assent to an Act which is itself a direct
 condemnation of your institutions.”[160]

That was the true, the honest, the intelligent and the reasonable
statement of the case; the hopes and fortunes of those in control were
indissolubly associated with the form of society which slavery had
erected in the South.

In the elaborate report of the committee of the General Assembly of
South Carolina, in reply to the message, in which the said Act was
recommended to be nullified; while the honesty and sincerity of the
members may not be questioned, their woeful unfitness for the position
of responsibility placed upon them, has, in the light of time, been
made almost ludicrously apparent. Their utter inability to appreciate
the terrific evils, to the civilization they thought they were
defending and strengthening by their advocacy of the re-opening of the
slave trade, was most strikingly indicated by their impressions of
the effect of emancipation, less lurid than Hammond’s picture, but as
strikingly incorrect.

 “The paralysis of industry, which would ensue from the emancipation
 of the slaves, would, in the course of a single year, leave the whole
 country almost destitute of food and the wretched inhabitants would
 perish by thousands with all the lingering tortures of unsatisfied
 hunger.”[161]

When to this were added the effusions of men like Spratt, we can
scarcely realize, that this was from the State which had produced
Robert Barnwell, Joseph Alston, William Lowndes and Robert Y. Hayne.

In the minority report, however, of an adopted son, J. Johnston
Pettigrew, who six years later fell with honor and renown, high
in rank, in the retreat from Gettysburg, the State found better
representation; while the brilliant Hammond, who had averred that
he: “endorsed without reserve the much abused sentiment of Governor
McDuffie, that ‘slavery is the corner-stone of our republican
edifice’;” nevertheless also had declared, in his controversy with
Clarkson: “I might say, that I am no more in favor of slavery in the
abstract, than I am of poverty, disease, deformity, idiocy or any other
inequality of the human family; that I love perfection and I think I
should enjoy a millennium such as God has promised.”[162]

It was not then that men like Hammond, Adams and Robert G. Harper, of
Georgia, were blind to the abuses of slavery, for Adams, the advocate
of the re-opening of the slave trade, had in his message to the General
Assembly of South Carolina only the year before declared:

 “The administration of our laws in relation to our colored population
 by our Courts of magistrates and free holders, as these Courts are
 at present constituted, calls loudly for reform. Their decisions
 are rarely in conformity with justice or humanity. I have felt
 constrained, in a majority of the cases brought to my notice, either
 to modify the sentence, or set it aside altogether.”[163]

Yet Governor Adams was willing to risk the frightful increase of
such recognized evils, by the flooding of the South with a host of
barbarians fresh from the jungles of Africa.

But against this, Harper, of Georgia, was a tower of strength.

Prof. DuBois declares that “although such hot-heads as Spratt were
not able, as late as 1859, to carry a substantial majority of the
South with them, in an attempt to reopen the trade at all hazards,
yet the agitation did succeed in sweeping away nearly all theoretical
opposition to the trade, and left the majority of Southern people in
an attitude, which regarded the opening of the African slave trade as
merely a question of expediency.”[164]

This he attempted to sustain by quotations from the Charleston
_Standard_, Richmond _Examiner_, New Orleans _Delta_, and other
Southern papers, intimating that Johnston Pettigrew’s minority report
cost him his re-election to the Legislature of South Carolina. As had
been shown, it did not, however, stand in the way of his elevation to a
high command of the forces South Carolina furnished for the War between
the States; while Senator Hammond, who had risen to the highest honor
his State could bestow, declared unequivocablly in 1858, with regard
to the re-opening of the slave trade: “I once entertained the idea
myself, but on further investigation abandoned it. I will not now go
into the discussion of it further than to say that the South is itself
divided on that policy, and from appearances, opposed to it by a vast
majority.”[165]

James Chesnut, the other senator from South Carolina, also announced
himself publicly against it in the same year. But it was in the
profoundly thoughtful and admirably thorough argument of Harper of
Georgia, that the opponents of re-opening found the best representation.

Southern to the core, it is a defense of slavery “as it existed in the
South,” that cannot be improved upon.

Harper knew that slave labor was not by any means cheap labor. Like
Hammond and other students of affairs, he knew that free labor was
cheaper both in Great Britain and the United States, but that the
reports of the parliamentary commission of 1842 had indicated that
the laboring classes of the United Kingdom were in a more miserable
condition, and were more degraded morally and physically than the
slaves of the South. He realized that capital would inevitably reach
out for cheap labor, which while a benefit to the employer and the
consumer, would slowly undermine the foundations of the republic,
bringing all labor down, while it built up a privileged class of idle
rich. He heard in this cry for the re-opening of the slave trade, the
same demand for cheap labor with all the ills which the South had
freed herself from, in the years in which she had trained and elevated
her expensive laboring class. He saw this cheap imported slave labor
invading the province of the remnant of the white working class of the
South, and rendering it inimical to the institution. But above and
beyond all this, he saw the slave trade, as his forbears had seen it in
the days the South produced her strongest men, and without any reserve
he declared:

 “By the votes of Southern representatives as well as Northern, we
 have stamped upon it the brand and penalty of the greatest of crimes
 against mankind.... The change has not yet been worked in public
 opinion in the South. It will be hard to produce it. When the attempt
 shall be made, it will develop a division which ages of discussion
 will utterly fail to overcome.”[166]

As objectionable as slavery is in the abstract, it is a debatable
question whether Harper of Georgia, advocate of slavery, as it existed
in the South in 1858, but determined opponent of the re-opening of
the slave trade, did not occupy higher ground from a humanitarian
standpoint, than did Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut in 1787, who was
then, “for leaving the clause as it stands, let every State import what
it pleases.... As population increases poor laborers will be so plenty
as to render slaves useless.”

Ellsworth might have gone further and declared with truth, that, if
poor laborers were not sufficiently plenteous, they could be imported.
In 1912 they were being brought in in such swarms that our civilization
was said to be threatened thereby.

But while there was this pronounced opposition to the re-opening of
the slave trade in the South, there is not much room to doubt that the
slave population of the South had been largely recruited with illicit
importations from abroad from 1808. To what extent it is difficult to
arrive at with any degree of accuracy.

In his “Suppression of the Slave Trade,” Prof. DuBois quotes
Congressional documents, to indicate that from Amelia Island, on
the Gulf Coast, in 1817 the pirates had eleven armed vessels with
which they captured slavers, and brought their cargoes into the
United States[167] and that, a year after the capture of the island
by United States troops, African and West Indian Negroes were almost
daily illicitly introduced into Georgia.[168] He also claims that the
estimates of three representatives of Congress, Tallmadge of New York,
Middleton, of South Carolina, and Wright of Virginia, in the year 1819,
were that slaves were then being brought into the country at the rate
of about 14,000 a year.[169] He thinks while smuggling never entirely
ceased, the participation of Americans declined between 1825 and 1835,
when it again revived, reaching its highest activity between 1840
and 1860, when the city of New York was “the principal port of the
world for this infamous commerce, although Portland and Boston were
only second.”[170] He quotes DeBow for the statement that, in 1856,
forty slavers cleared annually from Eastern harbors, clearing yearly
$17,000,000, and from the report of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
that between 1857 and 1858 twenty-one of the twenty-two slavers seized
by the British cruisers proved to be American, from New York, Boston
and New Orleans;[171] and Stephen A. Douglas claimed to have seen
recently imported slaves at Vicksburg and Memphis in 1859.[172]

The Charleston _Courier_ in 1839 printed an extract from the New York
_Journal of Commerce_, to the effect that twenty-three vessels under
the American flag had sailed about that time from Havana on the slave
trade[173]. And the Charleston _Mercury_ in 1849 declared: “The slave
trade is again very active in Cuba.”[174]

In support of these claims it can be said:

Of the increase of the colored population of the United States from
1850 to 1860, more than one-half was in the four States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas, into which slaves could most easily be
imported, and the temper of the most northerly of those was becoming
extremely sensitive upon the subject of allusions to the institution
of slavery, as the following extract of a resolution adopted by the
Legislature of that State, and sent to the other States of the Union,
indicates:

 “Whereas the right of property in slaves is expressly recognized
 by the Constitution of the United States, and is by virtue of such
 recognition guaranteed against unfriendly action on behalf of the
 General Government; and whereas, each State of the Union, by the
 fact of being a party to the federal compact, is also a party to the
 recognition and guaranty aforesaid.... Resolved: That the citizens of
 the State of Ohio have pursued a course peculiarly unjust and odious,
 in their fanatical hostility to institutions for which they are not
 responsible; in their encouragement of known felons and endorsement
 of repeated violations of law and decency, and in their establishment
 of abolition presses, and circulation of incendiary documents, urging
 a servile population to bloodshed and rapine, and by reason of the
 premises, it is the duty and interest of the people of Arkansas to
 discontinue all social and commercial relations with the citizens of
 the said State.” etc.[175]

It is interesting to note that in his very able and extremely
interesting paper on “The Fight for the Northwest,” 1860, the map which
accompanies the article of Prof. W. E. Dodd, does not include Ohio.

Quoting from a speech of Senator Hammond in 1858, in which the latter
declared: “The most valuable part of the Mississippi belongs to us,
and although those who have settled above us, are now opposed to us,
another generation will tell another tale,”[176] Mr. Dodd draws from it
the conclusion that “Hammond’s idea was that the railroads connecting
the West and the South, would so stimulate reciprocal trade between the
farmers and the planters, that the resistance of the Chicago-Detroit
region would be overcome.”

But it should be borne in mind that in 1858-1860, between the West and
the South there stretched a great tract of country over six hundred
miles in length, and nearly three hundred miles in breadth, through the
whole extent of which not a single railroad stretched across from the
Potomac at Harper’s Ferry to the junction of the Ohio River with the
Mississippi, near the northeastern corner of Arkansas.

To have crossed this great stretch just about the center at its widest
part was the scheme of Hayne’s road which had been abandoned for a
scheme of weakly paralleling below, the network stretching west
above.

[Illustration: U.S. 1860

WHITES

WHITES & BLACKS

NEGROES

RAILWAYS COMPLETED

” PROJECTED]

The effort of the presidential campaign by the Democrats may have been
for an election in the House in 1860, and may have been lost, as Prof.
Dodd declares, “only by a narrow margin by the votes of the foreigners,
whom the railroads poured in numbers into the contested region;” but
that triumph at the most would have only deferred the contest for
another four years, for by its special correspondent in the West, the
Columbus, Georgia, _Times_ had been informed in 1854:

 “If Kansas becomes a free soil State slavery will be doomed for
 Missouri.”[177]

The attempt then, inaugurated in 1840, to parallel the Northern
systems, pouring population westward, was recognized as an impossible
task in 1860, and with the election of Lincoln, known as the man who
had declared a house divided against itself cannot stand, the South
attempted to end the division by Secession.

To such a solution the more powerful North was unwilling to consent,
and the war followed for the Union.


FOOTNOTES:

[152] Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion, p. 184.

[153] Ibid.

[154] Ibid. p. 185.

[155] Jefferson Davis, Rise & Fall of Confed. Gov. p. 29, Vol. I.

[156] Jervey, Hayne, p. 451.

[157] Message, President Tyler, Richardson, Vol. 4, p. 363.

[158] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 665.

[159] Report Com. Religious Instruction Negroes, Jenkins, Vol. 23
pamphlets C. L. S. No. 10 p. 65.

[160] Appendix Report Special Com. House Rep. So. Ca. Walker & Evans,
1857. p. 57. Message Gov. Adams of S. C. 1856, Vol. 23.

[161] Report Special Com. Reopening Slave Trade, 1857, p. 9. Vol. 23.

[162] Hammond Speeches, p. 120.

[163] Gov. Adams of S. C. Message General Assembly 1855, Vol. 15.

[164] DuBois, Suppression Slave Trade, p. 173.

[165] Hammond Speeches, p. 335.

[166] Robert G. Harper, Argument Slave Trade, Vol. 23, pamphlet C. L.
S. Hanleiter, Atlanta Ga. No. 8. p. 66.

[167] DuBois, Suppression Slave Trade, p. 113.

[168] Ibid. p. 114.

[169] Ibid. p. 124.

[170] Ibid. p. 179.

[171] Ibid.

[172] Ibid. p. 181.

[173] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 504.

[174] _Charleston Mercury_, May 26, 1849.

[175] Resolutions State of Arkansas, 1855, Vol. 15, pamphlets C. L. S.

[176] Dodd, The Fight for the Northwest, 1860, Am. His. Review Vol.
XVI, p. 777.

[177] Columbus, Ga., _Times_, Nov. 19, 1854.




CHAPTER IX


From a consideration of the wisdom, propriety and morality of importing
African slaves as an article of commerce in 1787, the Negro Question
in the United States had progressed to the wisdom and propriety of
preventing any extension of the institution of slavery beyond those
limits in which it existed in 1820, and from this, with repeated
agitations, fairly shaking the Union to its foundation, followed by
compromises satisfactory to none, there had flared up a consideration
of the re-opening of the Slave Trade in 1856, swiftly followed by
Secession and war in 1860, and Emancipation, as a war measure, in 1863,
directed against the eleven Confederate States.

Throughout the four years of desperate struggle between the seceding
States and the consolidated Northern and Western States, the slaves,
by their behavior, illustrated moral character greatly to their
credit, and indisputably indicative of the civilizing influences of
the institution, in which they had been trained. But peace in 1865 at
once precipitated the question of the status of the freedman. In the
Northern States it was an important question. In the Southern States it
beggared all other questions.

With a property loss running up into the billions and a loss in
virile manhood almost incalculable and an indescribable uprooting and
overturning of industrial conditions, the failure of Secession left the
eleven States, which had constituted the Southern Confederacy, with
a white population of about 5,000,000, and a colored population of
about 4,000,000; but in three of them, South Carolina, Mississippi and
Louisiana the colored population exceeded the white.

Was the forecast of Calhoun and de Tocqueville to be verified?

In no States was the outlook as dark as in South Carolina, where there
could hardly have been more than 250,000 whites to 400,000 Negroes,
and in Mississippi, where the colored majority was not quite so large,
the proportions there being 350,000 white to some 430,000 Negroes. Yet
of the colored population in South Carolina, judging from the number
of free persons of color, in 1860, some 9,914,[178] and the number
of house slaves and mechanics in Charleston returned for taxation in
1859,[179] in the great mass, there were those of the Negroes, who, on
account of training, education and environment, together with inherited
tradition, if they had only been left unplayed upon by those who knew
them not, might have been relied upon in any great emergency. These,
at an estimate, might have amounted to 30,000 in South Carolina; in
Mississippi, less.

In both of these States, therefore, an earnest, thoughtful attempt was
designed by the former ruling class of whites, to rebuild the political
structure, at the same time readjusting the Negroes to the changed
condition brought about by emancipation. But, before considering this
much berated effort of the vanquished, a short sketch of conditions
in South Carolina in the spring and summer of 1865 will show to some
extent the increasing complexities and difficulties of the problem,
which Lincoln’s death saved him from, and which Andrew Johnson had to
face.

Even before Lincoln’s assassination there was evidence of a strong
disposition, upon the part of the pronounced abolitionists, to
humiliate the overthrown, and, in particular, that State and city which
for three decades had led the fight for “Slavery as we know it in the
Southern States.”

On April 6, 1865, William Lloyd Garrison, United States Senator Henry
Wilson, of Massachusetts, Judge Kelly of Pennsylvania, Theodore Tilton
and his intimate friend Rev. Henry Ward Beecher of New York, with
George Thompson of England, visited Charleston.

By General Saxton of Massachusetts, they were personally conducted to
the Citadel Green on Calhoun Street, a circumstance calling for some
facetious remarks by Major Delany, a very remarkable colored member
of the General’s Staff, and there the general presented the great
abolitionist to the immense throng that had gathered to hear him. But,
as thoroughly as the general and his distinguished guests considered
that they understood conditions, it is possible, they were slightly
surprised by the aplomb with which Samuel J. Dickerson (as a slave a
bricklayer, but as a local freedman, dropping his tools for a higher
pursuit and destined to become the mountebank of the bar) thrust
himself and his two daughters into the very centre of the picture. In
a fluent speech, Dickerson presented Garrison with a wreath. The great
man complimented him in his reply, exalted the State of Massachusetts
and himself introduced Senator Wilson, as one of the “mudsills” of
Massachusetts, who had from such condition risen to the eminence he
had attained. Then the great abolitionist gave way to the Senator, who
proclaimed the occasion “the proudest day of his life.”

Shouting to the excitable throng before him that he felt “the slave
power under his heel” he bellowed out his sentiments as follows:

 “I want the proud and haughty chivalry of South Carolina to know
 ... that the black men and black women of South Carolina are as
 free as they are.... And further that they are loyal to the flag
 of the country, while they are false and traitorous.... We have
 beaten; we have whipped them; their power is broken and they are lost
 forever.”[180]

He was followed by Judge Kelly, who denounced ex-President Buchanan and
eulogized Sam Dickerson. Other speeches followed in a similar vein and
to such an extent did the orgy of oratory extend that the apparently
one sane member of the band felt himself impelled upon the occasion of
a later address delivered at Zion Church to warn the Negroes against—

 “their remaining enemies, pride, indolence, impertinence; they are the
 serpents which will tempt the people.”[181]

The war was not as yet absolutely over and this speech of Senator
Wilson’s widely advertised must have rendered many Confederate
officers desperate. Don C. Seitz in his very valuable volume, “Braxton
Bragg, General of the Confederacy” gives a most interesting letter
from Wade Hampton, not a fortnight later, to Jefferson Davis, arguing
against acceptance of the terms of General Sherman to General Johnston,
in which he pictures most effectively the conditions worse than war,
which were foreshadowed by surrender. But fierce as was the blaze that
Wilson and his like were fanning, it became a devouring flame with
the assassination of Lincoln. This President Johnson, with the aid of
Seward, strove earnestly to quench.

Born in North Carolina, the most democratic State of the old South,
Andrew Johnson had raised himself from the humblest of origins to
a position of distinct prominence in that western Southern State
Tennessee, mainly peopled from North Carolina. Having been governor
of and senator from Tennessee, he had been placed in the dangerous
office of war governor in that State at a time, when through it echoed
and reëchoed the continual tramp of opposing armies, as they reeled
back and forward in contests rivalling those which soaked the soil of
Virginia with blood.

With nothing of the personal magnetism or the attractive traits of
his predecessor, the great rail splitter and wrestler of the West;
immovable to every suggestion that he should purchase support with
prostitution of the appointing power, even for a good end; giving out
his sentiments with an aggressive honesty, which must have shocked the
careless average; nothing could have more clearly marked the gulf
between him and the sentimentality of the abolitionists, Garrison,
Davis, Kelly and others, than his reception in the very first days of
his presidency of the delegation of colored men who called upon him
chiefly to indulge in that, to them the dearest right of freedom, free
speech. To these and to the general public of the North, his reply must
have been offensive, whatever truth it may have contained. He said in
part:

 “It is easy in Congress and from the pulpit, North and South to
 talk about polygamy and Brigham Young and debauchery of various
 kinds; but there is also one great fact that four millions of people
 lived in open and notorious concubinage. The time has come when
 you must correct this thing. You know what I say is true and you
 must do something to correct it by example as well as words and
 professions.... I trust in God the time may come when you shall be
 gathered together in a clime and country suited to you, should it be
 found that the two races cannot get along together.”[182]

It is almost idle, after the above, to state that Johnson was
absolutely devoid of the kindly tact and vulgar humor, which had so
endeared Lincoln, the supplest politician of his time, to the coarse
mass of the electorate, as he had voiced for it, its thoughts in a
tongue it could understand and appreciate.

When we reflect, that Johnson, a Southern man, the Vice President
coming from the conquered South, was handed the reins at the moment
when the victorious North, flushed with conquest, saw its great leader,
identified with the West, hurled from his high position to bloody
death, at the hands of a murderer, who proclaimed his sympathy with the
vanquished South, the immensity of the difficulties about to confront
him begins to appear. In addition, he, himself, before being steadied
by the responsibilities of the office, had “breathed threatenings and
slaughter.”

In a proclamation, claiming that Jefferson Davis and others had
incited, concocted and procured the atrocious murder of President
Abraham Lincoln and the attempted assassination of William H. Seward,
ex-President Jefferson Davis had been held up to obloquy and, upon
his capture, imprisoned and chained; but what was infinitely more
horrible, Wirz, the Confederate officer in charge of Andersonville,
was made a human sacrifice, under circumstances which have left an
ineffaceable blot upon all in any way responsible for making him the
scapegoat for the very effective military policy which refused the
Confederate offer to exchange prisoners. If it took the magnanimity
and fortitude of Seward to point out the method by which the Union
might be saved from the fate in which the Congressional conspirators
meant to involve it, for their own immediate ends, and if, in this
hacked victim of the assassins, Johnson found the anchor by which he
rode out the storm which burst upon him; yet it should be remembered
that nothing but the sturdiest integrity and most indomitable courage
could have nerved Johnson to even attempt the struggle, he fought
out to the end. Conditions in the South were appalling. Bled to a
whiteness, which not even France experienced in the Great War; with
her labor system hopelessly disorganized by the Freedman’s Bureau;
not only by its methods but by the openly announced suggestions of
its head, General Howard, that the landholders should be compelled by
the Federal Government to furnish their former slaves with land,[183]
industry stood still. With Negro troops quartered in every direction
under “the deliberate purpose to emphasize the completeness of the
catastrophe which the war had brought upon the South,”[184] collisions
between them and the whites were of almost daily occurrence. But these
could not, in the bulk of cases, be attributed to the truculence of
Southern slave holders from the fact that instances were not few, in
which Northern troops, acting in the line of duty, were assailed by
colored men. A Federal soldier, acting as guard and on his post at a
house in Abbeville, was shot by colored soldiers,[185] incensed against
the inmates. Sergeant Terry and four members of the 127th New York
Volunteers, acting as a guard on the Battery at Charleston, were set
upon by Negroes abetted by members of the 35th United States Colored
Troops and two of the guard wounded, before the arrival of additional
white troops scattered the assailants with five casualties and some
arrests.[186] Later, Lieutenant A. S. Bodine, of the same regiment, for
clearing a meeting of whites of uninvited Negroes, among whom appeared
Negro soldiers with sidearms, was courtmartialed by order of General
Hatch in command at Charleston, the court finding him guilty, on the
flimsiest evidence, of “unwarrantable exercise of arbitrary power” and
sentencing him to reprimand by his superior officer, which reprimand
was immediately ordered to be withdrawn by the general in command of
the department.[187]

With such conditions in towns and cities it is scarcely surprising to
read the account of the execution a little later of James Grippen and
Ben Redding of Co. F, 104th United States Colored Troops, on charges
of rape, arson and burglary, they with others, not apprehended, having
broken into a house near McPhersonville, South Carolina, and there
ravished four white women, named.[188] With such facts leaking out from
time to time, in spite of the pressure from outside of his cabinet to
induce him to leave South Carolina for a couple of years under military
rule, President Johnson determined to appoint a provisional governor
and, for this purpose, issued a proclamation which was in part as
follows:

 “Whereas the 4th section of the 4th article of the Constitution of
 the United States declares that the United States shall guarantee to
 every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall
 protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence; and
 whereas the President of the United States is by the Constitution
 made Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy as well as chief civil
 executive officer of the United States, and is bound by solemn oath
 faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
 and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and whereas
 the rebellion which has been waged by a portion of the people of the
 United States against the properly constituted authorities of the
 Government thereof in the most violent and revolting form, but whose
 organized and armed forces have been almost entirely overcome, has in
 its revolutionary progress, deprived the people of the State of South
 Carolina of all civil government; and whereas it becomes necessary and
 proper to carry out and enforce the obligations of the United States
 to the people of South Carolina in securing them in the enjoyment of a
 republican form of government. Now therefore, in obedience to the high
 and solemn duties imposed upon me by the Constitution of the United
 States, and for the purpose of enabling the loyal people of said State
 to organize a State Government, whereby justice may be established,
 domestic tranquillity insured and loyal citizens protected in all
 their rights of life, liberty and property, I, Andrew Johnson,
 President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the army and
 navy of the United States do hereby appoint Benjamin F. Perry of South
 Carolina, Provisional Governor of the State of South Carolina, whose
 duty it shall be at the earliest practicable time to prescribe such
 regulations as may be necessary and proper for convening a Convention
 composed of delegates to be chosen by that portion of the people of
 said State who are loyal to the United States and no others, for the
 purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof and with
 authority to exercise within the limits of said State all the powers
 necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the State of South
 Carolina to restore said State to its constitutional relation to the
 Federal Government and to present such a republican form of State
 Government as will entitle the State to the guarantee therefor and
 its people to the protection of the United States against invasion,
 insurrection and domestic violence; provided that in any election
 that may hereafter be held for choosing delegates to any State
 Convention as aforesaid, no person shall be qualified as an elector
 or shall be eligible as a member of such convention unless he shall
 have previously taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set forth
 in the President’s proclamation, May 29th, 1865 and is a voter as
 prescribed by the Constitution or laws of the State of South Carolina
 in force immediately before the date of the so called Ordinance of
 Secession. And the said convention which convenes, or the Legislature
 that may thereafter be assembled will prescribe the qualifications
 of electors and the eligibility of persons to hold office under the
 Constitution and laws of the State, as or may the people of the
 several States composing the Federal Union have rightfully exercised
 from the origin of the Government to the present time. And I do hereby
 direct, etc.”

In the proclamation appeared the command that the military authorities
should in no way obstruct, hinder or interfere with the above.[189]
Just previously to Governor Perry’s proclamation calling such
convention, a letter appeared contributing greatly to the success of
the President’s plan in South Carolina. The writer of the letter was
Wade Hampton, late Lieutenant General, C.S.A. The letter reveals the
despairing condition of many, in its attempt to assuage such. It was
widely reproduced and ran thus:

 “To the editor of the Columbia Phoenix, Sir:

 Numerous communications having been addressed to me, proposing to
 form a colony to emigrate, I take this method of answering them, not
 only on account of their number but because of the want of all mail
 facilities. The desire to leave a country which has been reduced to
 such a deplorable condition as ours and whose future has so little
 of hope is doubtless as widespread as it is natural. But I doubt
 the propriety of this expatriation of so many of our best men. The
 very fact that our State is passing through so terrible an ordeal
 as the present should cause her sons to cling the more closely to
 her. My advice to all of my fellow citizens is that they should
 devote their whole energies to the restoration of law and order,
 the reestablishment of agriculture and commerce, the promotion of
 education and the rebuilding of our cities and dwellings which have
 been laid in ashes. To accomplish these objects, the highest that
 patriotism can conceive, I recommend that all, who can do so should
 take the oath of allegiance to the United States Government, so that
 they may participate in the restoration of Civil Government to our
 State. War, after four years of heroic but unsuccessful struggle
 has failed to secure to us the rights for which we engaged in it.
 To save any of our rights—to rescue anything more from the general
 ruin—will require all the statesmanship and all the patriotism of our
 citizens. If the best men of our country—those who for years past
 have risked their lives in her defence—refuse to take the oath, they
 will be excluded from the councils of the State, and its destiny
 will be committed of necessity to those who forsook her in her hour
 of need or to those who would gladly pull her down to irretrievable
 ruin. To guard against such a calamity, let all true patriots devote
 themselves with zeal and honesty of purpose to the restoration of
 law, the blessings of peace and the rescue of whatever liberty may be
 saved from the general wreck. If, after an honest effort to effect
 that object, we fail we can then seek a home in another country. A
 distinguished citizen of our State—an honest man and true patriot—has
 been appointed Governor. He will soon call a Convention of the people
 which will be charged with the most vital interests of our State.
 Choose for this Convention your best and truest men; not those who
 have skulked in the hour of danger—nor those who have worshipped
 Mammon, while their country was bleeding at every pore—nor the
 politicians, who after urging war dared not encounter its hardships,
 but those who laid their all upon the altar of their country. Select
 such men and make them serve as your representatives. You will then
 be sure that your rights will not be wantonly sacrificed, nor your
 liberty bartered for a mess of pottage. My intention is to pursue this
 course. I recommend it to others. Besides the obligations I owe to my
 State, there are others of a personal character, which will not permit
 me to leave the country at present. I shall devote myself earnestly,
 if allowed to do so, to the discharge of these obligations, public and
 private. In the meantime I shall obtain all information which would
 be desirable in the establishment of a colony, in case we should be
 ultimately forced to leave the country. I invoke my fellow citizens,
 especially those who have shared with me the perils and the glories
 of the last four years, to stand by our State manfully and truly. The
 Roman Senate voted thanks to one of their generals, because in the
 darkest hour of the Republic, he did not despair. Let us emulate the
 example of the Romans and thus entitle ourselves to the gratitude of
 our country.

  Respectfully,
  Wade Hampton.[190]

  July 27, 1865.

The convention was held and following it an election for governor and
members of the General Assembly under the new Constitution and the most
distinguished members of the convention, without regard to differences
of opinion as to policies, united in recommending as candidate for
governor Hon. James L. Orr, who prior to the war had been Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives and with the organization
of the Confederate States, a Senator from South Carolina and who had
organized a command and seen service in the War between the States.

Despite these facts and in the teeth of his published declination of a
nomination, in his absence, General Hampton was nominated for governor
by the mechanics of Charleston and only defeated by 733 votes in a
total of 19,113 cast, a vote measured by the white males of voting age
just after the war and its disabilities, which must have been at least
forty per cent of what could have possibly been polled.

A legislature most representative of the State assembled and from the
names appended to the: “Act preliminary to the legislation induced
by the emancipation of slaves,” passed Nov. 19, 1865, W. D. Porter,
President of the Senate, C. H. Simonton, Speaker of the House,
and James L. Orr, Governor, appear officially responsible for the
legislation; but the main work of framing it was done by D. L. Wardlaw
and Armistead Burt. Although continuously and often very incorrectly
assailed, viewed by a critic in no way partial to the South, these
efforts of the vanquished, before the flood of Reconstruction was let
loose by Congress upon the South, do not appear as frightful as they
still are alleged to be.

Professor Burgess, speaks of them in general in the following terms:

 “When the newly reorganized States came to assume jurisdiction over
 matters concerning the freedmen, they found themselves driven to some
 legislation to prevent the whole Negro race from becoming paupers
 and criminals. It was in the face of such a situation that the
 legislatures of these States passed laws concerning apprenticeship,
 vagrancy and civil rights which were looked upon at the North as
 attempts to reenslave the newly emancipated and served to bring the
 new State governments at the South into deep reproach. It must be
 remembered, however, that at the time of the passage of the Stevens
 resolution by the House of Representatives, only two of Mr. Johnson’s
 reconstructed States had passed any laws upon these subjects. These
 two were Mississippi and South Carolina, and a close examination of
 the text of these enactments will hardly justify the interpretation
 placed upon them by the Radical Republicans.”[191]

Professor Dunning in a later work states that:

 “South Carolina forbade persons of color to engage in any trade or
 business other than husbandry and farm or domestic service, except
 under a license requiring a substantial annual fee; and in the code
 concerning master and servants embodied many rules that strongly
 suggested those formerly in force as to master and slave.”[192]

The license required for a shopkeeper was substantial, also that for a
pedlar. It was one hundred dollars a year. In both of these vocations
the mass of the Negroes could be easily fleeced by the shrewd and
unscrupulous members of the race; but in all other vocations, except
those free, it was only ten dollars.[193]

While accusing Wilson, Sumner and other extremists of distorting the
spirit and purpose of both the laws and the lawmakers of the South,
Professor Dunning says:

 “Yet as a matter of fact, this legislation, far from embodying
 any spirit of defiance towards the North or any purpose to evade
 the conditions which the victors had imposed, was, in the main, a
 conscientious and straightforward attempt to bring some sort of order
 out of social and economic chaos which a full acceptance of the war
 and emancipation involved.”[194]

In his opinion:

 “After all, the greatest fault of the Southern lawmakers was not that
 their procedure was unwise _per se_, but that when legislating as a
 conquered people, they failed adequately to consider and be guided by
 the prejudices of their conquerors.”[195]

If there is ground for condemnation in the above, the South must be
condemned for thinking better of their conquerors than they deserved.
The South Carolina Act, above alluded to, excepted from the provisions
of what has been called the “Black Code”—“every person who may have
of Caucasian blood, seven-eighths or more,” who it provided “shall be
deemed a white person,”[196] declaring, however, that: “all other free
Negroes, mulattoes and mestizos, all freed women and all descendants
through either sex of any of these, except as above, shall be known as
persons of color.”

It declared that the statutes and regulations concerning slaves were
inapplicable to persons of color and although such were not entitled to
social or political equality with white persons, they were given the
right to own and dispose of property, to make contracts, to enjoy the
fruits of their labor, to sue and be sued, and to receive protection
under the law in their persons and property.

While the Black Code did therefore regulate the relations and restrain
persons of color, in Mr. Dunning’s and Mr. Burgess’s opinion, there was
little in the South Carolina Act calculated to arouse any pronounced
hostility in the North. In the opinion of the latter, indeed, it—

 “provided for substantial equality in civil rights between persons of
 color and white persons.”[197]

Two provisions it did contain of great importance, which it must be
borne in mind were framed by the representatives of 250,000 whites
surrounded by 400,000 Negroes, ninety per cent of whom were densely
ignorant. The first of these was aimed to prevent the burden of this
helpless ignorance from increasing; the second to secure to this
population a measure of protection, which those who had emancipated the
slaves had not granted to the freedmen in their own section, by their
own laws, for the greater part of the time of their living in Free
States.—

 “XXII. No person of color shall migrate into and reside in this State,
 unless within twenty days after his arrival within the same he shall
 enter into bond with two freeholders as sureties to be approved by
 the Judge of the District Court or a Magistrate, in a penalty of one
 thousand dollars conditioned for his good behavior and for his support
 if he should become unable to support himself.”[198]

This act further provided that upon failure to furnish bond the
free person of color could be ordered to leave the State, and, upon
failure to leave, be subjected to corporal punishment within a certain
time, and if still contumacious, could be imprisoned in the State
Penitentiary for a period. The other act granted to the immense black
majority what the laws of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, for almost half
a century, had denied to the feeble minority of free blacks who had
entered their borders:

 “In every case civil and criminal in which a person of color is a
 party or which affects the person or property of a person of color,
 persons of color shall be competent witnesses.”[199]

In its day and since, this legislation has been roundly denounced.
Those in control of Federal politics saw in it a peaceful settlement
of great questions which threatened their supremacy, and bitterly and
unreservedly reprobated it, stirring up public opinion in that section,
which yet flushed with its conquest, was unwilling to permit any
interference with its great mission of “putting the bottom rail on top.”

The conquerors had preserved the Union and abolished slavery. Those
were two immense achievements, even if ruthlessly attained.

As terrible as was the price which the South paid for the abolition of
slavery, it was not too great, taking all things into consideration;
and the manner of the abolition was such, also, that in time it must
have given rise to as it did eventually produce, that mutual respect
between the sections which had not before existed.

While Emancipation, being confiscation of property without due process
of law, can never be legally justified, and only can be excused as a
war measure, yet, if the Southern people, white and black, could only
be made to see conditions as they are now in the South and to realize
that posterity does fairly demand some consideration from those who
bring it into being, one hundred years will not have passed before
it will have been incontrovertibly demonstrated that Emancipation was
more beneficial to the South than to the North. This statement is
made with a full appreciation of the fact that the War, Emancipation
and Reconstruction so reduced the South and checked its industrial
development, that thirty years were required from the inception of the
War to bring that section again up to the position it had reached in
1860, in point of wealth and industry.

War and Emancipation can therefore be excused, but Reconstruction will
ever remain an ineffaceable stain upon the conquerors. Yet, as an
emetic sometimes produces good which nothing else can bring about, so
Reconstruction may in time be shown to have been not without its good.

Just what might have been the effects of the attempt made by the
Southern States to readjust the Negroes to the changed conditions
of 1865 must now always remain a matter of surmise; for the
differentiations of color, race and condition, which they attempted
then to establish, were ruthlessly swept out of existence by military
control and universal suffrage followed by the Civil Rights Bill.

But before considering that era of frantic sentimentality concerning
the African people in the United States, the period of Congressional
Reconstruction, a little more light should be thrown upon the struggle
made by the surviving soldiery of the Confederacy, led by Wade Hampton
of South Carolina and others less well remembered, as Wright of
Georgia, to support the policy of Seward and President Johnson. Not
unnaturally in so doing attention will be concentrated to a very great
degree upon the Scape Goat, The Hot Bed of Secession, The Prostrate
State, although it was from without, if upon her borders, the record
was preserved by one of her sons, an almost forgotten soldier and
scholar of the Old South, in his tireless, patriotic and absolutely
sincere and highly intelligent effort to mentally avert the overthrow
of the remnants of Southern civilization, threatened in the advance of
the black horde of freedmen marching to plunder, under the leadership
of Sumner, Stevens and Wilson and the half averted countenance of Grant.

This description by a Southern man may seem possibly too comprehensive
and severe, until we read the declaration of that American Negro most
generally esteemed in the North in his day, the leader of the Negro
race in America:

 “I felt that the Reconstruction policy, so far as it related to my
 race was in a large measure on a false foundation, was artificial and
 forced. In many cases it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race
 was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office and
 that there was an element in the North which wanted to punish the
 Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads
 of Southern whites.”[200]

How can the characterization be doubted when we remember Senator
Wilson’s speech in Charleston and the fact that with such a record as
he had and such a field to choose from, he was made Grant’s running
mate, the Aaron for that Moses.

The Southerner who preserved this record of the aspirations of the
Old South was so identified with the political thought of the great
State of North Carolina, that, like Andrew Jackson, whom he knew and
asserted to be a South Carolinian, he also, though such, was thought to
be a North Carolinian. But Daniel Harvey Hill was, on July 12, 1821,
born in South Carolina, at Hill’s Iron Works, an iron manufacturing
establishment founded in the New Acquisition (later York District),
by his grandfather, prior to the Revolutionary War, where cannon
were forged for the American army. A graduate of West Point and a
distinguished veteran of the Mexican War, in which he rose to the
brevet of Major, he resigned from the United States army to embrace
the highest avocation a man may follow and became in 1849 a professor
of mathematics at Washington College, Lexington, “the Athens” of
Virginia, and later, was put in control of the Military Institute
of North Carolina; whence he entered the Confederate Army, served
through the war with distinction, rising to the rank of lieutenant
general, and issuing from Charlotte, May, 1866, the first number of
the monthly magazine, _The Land We Love_, published by him from that
place until April, 1869, through which he voiced the aspirations, hopes
and resolves, in the main, of the disbanded forces of the Confederacy,
probably, at that date constituting seventy per cent or more of the
white manhood of the South. If the magazine was modeled upon an English
rather than an American type, it was the more representative of the
South Atlantic States at that time. If forty per cent or more of
its contents bore upon the recent war, considering the times and the
conditions of the section upon which it was dependent for support, that
was most natural.

In it can be found not infrequent contributions from that Georgian
said by Professor Trent to have been the one poet the War produced
from the South; also some papers from that novelist of South Carolina
whom Lewisohn has mentioned in his article on South Carolina, in _The
Nation_ in 1922; and one from that Northern adopted son of South
Carolina, to whom the State owes the great institution, Clemson
College, for the aims of which General Hill strove so hard in his
opening article on “Education.” Space will not admit of more than three
extracts; the discussion by General Hill of education; an allusion to
E. G. Lee’s “Maximilian and His Empire,” and a still briefer allusion
to and endorsement of Wade Hampton and his policy concerning the
freedmen. The first is the most important. After discussing the number
of presidents from the South, including Lincoln and Johnson, eleven out
of the seventeen, up to that time elected, coming from the South and an
even greater proportion of secretaries of state and attorney generals,
General Hill indicates, that when business ability was desired, as in
the offices of secretary of the treasury and postmaster general, the
situation was at once reversed, and thus proceeds:

 “The facts and figures above have been given in warning, not in
 boastfulness. The pride which we might have felt in the glories of
 the past is rebuked by the thought that they were purchased at
 the expense of the material prosperity of the country; for men of
 wealth and talents did not combine their fortunes, their energies
 and their intellects to develop the immense resources of the land of
 their nativity. What factories did they erect? What mines did they
 dig? What foundries did they establish? What machine shops did they
 build? What ships did they put afloat? Their minds and their hearts
 were engrossed in the struggle for national position and national
 honors. The yearning desire was for political supremacy and never for
 domestic thrift and economy. Hence we became dependent upon the North
 for everything from a lucifer match to a columbiad, from a pin to a
 railroad engine. A state of war found us without the machinery to make
 a single percussion cap for a soldier’s rifle, or a single button for
 his jacket. The system of labor which erected a class covetous of
 political distinction has been forever abolished; but the system of
 education based upon it is still unchanged and unmodified.... The old
 method of instruction was never wise; it is now worse than folly—’tis
 absolute madness. Is not attention to our fields and firesides of
 infinitely more importance to us than attention to national affairs?
 Is not a practical acquaintance with the ax, the plane, the saw, the
 anvil, the loom, the plow and the mattock vastly more useful to an
 impoverished people, than familiarity with the laws of nations and
 the science of government?... All unconscious of it though most of us
 may be, a kind providence is working in the right way for the land
 we love. As a people we specially needed two things. We needed the
 cutting off the temptation to seek political supremacy, in order that
 our common school, academic and collegiate training should be directed
 to practical ends.... The state of probation, pupilage, vassalage, or
 whatever it may be called in which we have been placed by the dominant
 party in Congress is we believe intended by the Giver of every good
 and perfect gift to give us higher and nobler ideas of education and
 the duties of educated men.... Again we needed to have manual labor
 made honorable. And here a kind Providence has brought good out of
 evil.... God is now honoring manual labor with us, as he has never
 done with any other nation. It is the high born, the cultivated, the
 intelligent, the brave, the generous, who are now constrained to work
 with their own hands. Labor is thus associated in our minds with all
 that is honorable in birth, refined in manners, bright in intellect,
 manly in character and magnanimous in soul.... Now that labor has been
 dignified and cherished we want it to be recognized in our schools and
 colleges.... The peasant who would confine the teachings of his son
 to Machiavelli’s Discourse ‘On the Prince’ or Fenelon’s ‘instruction
 to his royal pupils,’ would be no more ignoring his rank and station
 than are our teachers ignoring the condition of the country. Is the
 law of nations important to us who constitute nor state, nor colony,
 nor territory? Is the science of mind useful to us just now, when
 our highest duty is to mind our own business? Will logic help us
 in our reasoning whether we are in or out of the Union? Will the
 flowers of rhetoric plant any roses in our burnt districts?... We
 want on the contrary a comprehensive plan of instruction, which will
 embrace the useful rather than the profound, the practical rather
 than the theoretic; a system which will take up the ignorant in his
 degredation, enlighten his mind, cultivate his heart, and fit him
 for the solemn duties of an immortal being; a system which will come
 to the poor in his poverty and instruct him in the best method of
 procuring food, raiment and the necessaries of life; a system which
 will give happiness to the many, and not aggrandizement to the few, a
 system which will foster and develop mechanical ingenuity and relieve
 labor of its burden; which will entwine its laurel wreath around the
 brow of honest industry and frown with contempt upon the idle and
 worthless.”[201]

Is it surprising that a man who thus exhorted the South in that day and
hour should have been condemned by both Sumner of Massachusetts and
Pollard of Virginia?

For three years, the worst in the history of the South, he kept his
magazine before the people of South with a circulation of 12,000
copies and agents in every Southern State and in addition in New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois and California. He never gave up the fight and
in the year of his death saw his dream come true, but he did not get
that support his cause would have entitled him to particularly expect
from the then leading port of the South Atlantic. For even a devoted
citizen of Charleston must admit, that Charleston, by such evidences
as exist, was rather cold to this voice of the South. For a few months
Burke and Boinest were the agents in that city, then no names appear as
representatives in the greatest city of the South, with the exception
of New Orleans; while, at little places in South Carolina, Mayesville,
Edgefield, Society Hill and Kingstree, the agents held on to the end,
faithful unto death. But in Charleston, within one month from the
suspension of _The Land We Love_, a new Southern magazine was launched,
_The XIX Century_, edited by F. G. DeFontaine, distinctly lighter, and,
as events indicated, with less lasting power.

Returning to General Hill’s magazine, if manual and industrial training
was a hobby and if his criticism of the former political training and
lack of industrial enterprise was too sweeping; yet in his columns
was afforded space for the most interesting illustration of what that
political training could flower into, which can be found anywhere in
the printed page in the United States. This is a sweeping statement
itself; but if the highest type of cultivated diplomat, thoroughly
conversant with the _haute politique_ will read and ponder “Maximilian
and His Empire” contributed by Gen. E. G. Lee, Feb. 1867, he would
be curious to know who this Gen. E. G. Lee was and what were his
opportunities for gathering the political knowledge which appears most
interestingly spread with something of the assurance of a political
seer, as time has shown.

E. G. Lee was a Virginian, only a brigadier. Born at Leeland, May 25,
1835, a graduate of William and Mary College, he served under Stonewall
Jackson in the Valley campaign. Forced by ill health to withdraw from
military service between 1863 and 1864, he was, in the latter part
of the last mentioned year, sent to Canada on secret service for the
Confederate Government, just about the time at which Blair approached
the officials of the Confederacy, according to Alex. H. Stephens, Vice
President of the Confederacy, aiming to bring about—

 “a secret military convention between the belligerents with a view of
 preventing the establishment of a French Empire in Mexico by the joint
 operation of the Federal and Confederate armies in maintenance of the
 Monroe Doctrine. In this way (writes Mr. Stephens) Mr. Blair thought,
 as Mr. Davis stated to me, a fraternization would take place between
 the two armies and peace be ultimately obtained by a restoration of
 the Union without the subjugation of the Southern States.”[202]

In his Lincoln, Mr. Stephenson says:

 “While the amendment (abolishing slavery) was taking its way through
 Congress, a shrewd old politician who thought he knew the world better
 than most men, that Montgomery Blair, Senior, who was father to the
 Postmaster General, had been trying on his own responsibility to open
 negotiations between Washington and Richmond. His visionary ideas,
 which were wholly without the results he intended have no place here.
 And yet this fanciful episode had a significance of its own. Had it
 not occurred, the Confederate Government probably would not have
 appointed commissioners charged with the hopeless task of approaching
 the Federal Government for the purpose of negotiating peace between
 ‘the two countries.’”

Just what was really happening in the world of politics in these dying
days of the Confederacy may possibly never be known with any degree
of exactness. The play of politics, not only in the United States;
but around the world was quick and varied but very obscure. Mr.
Stephenson, the most interesting and thoughtful observer of Lincoln’s
career attaches very slight importance to Blair’s negotiations with
the Confederacy; but more to the prior negotiations of Gilmore and
Jacquess, even going so far as to assert, on the authority of Nicolay
and Hay, that Davis had said in his interview with them:

 “You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves; and
 if you will take care of them, you may emancipate the rest. I had a
 few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of
 any to me.”[203]

Nicolay and Hay do assert that Jacquess asserted that Davis so stated;
but they also give Davis’s account of the incident which he published
in his “Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.” In this we find
no such assertion by Davis and on the contrary the following:

 “Mr. Gilmore addressed me and in a few minutes conveyed the
 information that the two gentlemen had come to Richmond impressed
 with the idea that the Confederate Government would accept a peace on
 the basis of a reconstruction of the Union, the abolition of slavery
 and the grant of an amnesty to the people of the States as repentant
 criminals.... The impudence of the remarks could only be extenuated
 because of the ignorance displayed and the profuse avowal of the
 kindest motives and intentions.”[204]

From this Mr. Davis proceeds to discuss the appointment of
commissioners to Canada about the middle of 1864, their failure and the
mission of Mr. Blair in December. Gen. E. G. Lee’s name is not among
the commissioners, as stated, nor is there any reference to his mission
in _The Rise and Fall_. But his article in _The Land We Love_[205]
appearing in 1867 shows a knowledge and understanding of politics
enveloping “Maximilian and His Empire,” viewed from the standpoint
of the Confederate States, Louis Napoleon, and Wm. H. Seward, most
interesting. This forgotten and youthful Virginian graduate of the
oldest college in the United States, in the discussion of a matter
in which he does not mention himself, must have had sources of
information, which he does not reveal. His admiration for an opponent,
Seward, is unrestrained. His contempt for Louis Napoleon is expressed
with a refinement that imparts to it a greater force; and altogether
as he passes from the stage an unreconstructed “Rebel,” dying even
before Virginia shook off the grip of the blacks, he carries with him
to the grave some history, which if more fully revealed might have
added interest to Blair’s mission. At all events, if General Hill asked—

 “Is not attention to our fields and firesides of infinitely more
 importance to us than attention to national affairs?”[206]

he yielded space and advanced to the front page of his magazine one
best fitted to illustrate—“_Audi alteram partem_.”

A little later in an editorial praising Generals Hampton and Wright,
Hill says:

 “So far as we have been able to ascertain every Southern newspaper
 edited by a Confederate soldier, has followed the lead of these
 distinguished officers. The prominent idea held out by Generals
 Hampton and Wright, is that the freedman is to be trained to feel that
 he is a Southern man, identified with the South in its interests, its
 trials and its suffering. He is to be taught to feel that he is no
 alien upon the soil, but that this is his country and his home.”[207]

In the elections of 1868, however, Congressional Reconstruction was
overwhelmingly triumphant throughout the South and, with a fringe of
whites, a black pall was thrown over the region.

So determined were the ruling political leaders of that day, to
enforce their will upon a crushed and impoverished people, that in
South Carolina in 1870, to enforce the provisions of legislation for
social equality, these alien law makers did not hesitate to abrogate
the elementary rule of the criminal law, which provides that the
accused shall be deemed innocent until proven guilty, and so shaped
the legislation, of the Civil Rights Act, that any one accused of
violating its strict and far reaching provisions, on failure to prove
his innocence of the charge, became liable to a fine of one thousand
dollars and also imprisonment in the State penitentiary for five years
at hard labor, which was increased to six years upon failure to pay
the fine. Any one aiding or abetting in the infraction of the law was
liable to a term of three years in the State penitentiary, with the
loss of the right to vote or hold office.[208]

Now, it was while men’s minds in South Carolina were intensely
agitated by the immense sweep of this act, that the whites of one of
the religious denominations of this State found presented for their
consideration, what was deemed by many of the various denominations as
the entering wedge for the removal of distinctions between the races in
the establishment of religious equality.

With regard to equality between men, it has been declared that there
are at least four clearly distinguished connotations attached to the
word, and a great variety of shades in each. These four connotations of
equality are:

 “1. Social equality, the tests of which are that we can invite
 each other to meet our friends in our homes without any thought of
 condescension or patronage and that our sons and daughters may freely
 intermarry....

 2. Political equality, which is confined to the common possession of a
 vote....

 3. Religious equality, which consists in common access to religious
 privileges on the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by the
 church or the religious bodies.

 4. Equality before the law, where the law courts are open to all alike
 for the protection of person and property.”[209]

The South Carolina law of 1865 gave to all the Negroes the right to sue
and be sued, and to receive protection under the law in their persons
and property, and therefore apparently the law courts were opened to
all alike; but whether the Negroes thereby obtained a right to trial by
a jury of their peers is a question.

As to those members of the colored race possessing seven-eighths or
more of Caucasian blood, as far as law could make them, they were white.

Reconstruction attempted to extend to all of the colored race what had
been extended to this portion; and now a portion were applying for
religious equality.

The question was whether there was any distinction between religious
and social equality?

That depends upon the estimate of each individual as to what “The
Church” is.

If it is in truth and fact a divine institution, then the necessity of
subjecting it to those regulations which experience has proven most
expedient, for the proper adjustment of civil relations, is not very
clearly apparent.

If it is not a divine institution, then it is a social organization,
no matter how high the plane upon which it is operated, and religious
equality brings in its train social equality.

The attempt of British divines, face to face with the color question in
South Africa, to readjust the religious views of the fifties, directed
at people mainly outside their own doors and to justify the refusal
to extend religious equality to the blacks in the Dominions, on the
professed ground that there is not complete spiritual equality among
men and that the final award for the use cannot be made a basis for
the adjustment of earthly relations, moves somewhat limpingly, and, in
lucidity, falls far below the utterance of that profound Negro, who
has so clearly set forth the rights of his race in America, in the
following declaration:

 “The Negro has a God ordained right to protest against his exclusion
 from means of self support. He has equal right to protest when
 deprived of legal and civil justice, or when the opportunity of
 knowledge or sober living is denied him. He has no just cause of
 complaint, however, when excluded from social intercourse with the
 white race, for the obvious reason that mankind does not mingle on
 terms of social equality—a fact as true of black men as of white. Nor
 is Negro exclusion from membership in white churches a trespass on
 Negro rights, for after all, a church is neither more nor less than a
 social family.”[210]

Of the Negro who made this sane well balanced pronouncement it is
fitting that a white South Carolinian should have something to say,
although he has been absolutely ignored by the most cultivated members
of his race.

As we shall later note DuBois, who today comes nearer being recognized
as the leading Negro of America than any who can be mentioned, has
claimed that:

 “the greatest stigma on the white South is ... that when it saw
 the reform movement growing and even in some cases triumphing, and
 a larger and larger number of black voters learning to vote for
 honesty and ability, it still preferred a Reign of Terror to a
 campaign of education, and disfranchised Negroes instead of punishing
 rascals.”[211]

In 1874 in South Carolina, Judge John T. Green, a Republican, was
a candidate for governor against D. H. Chamberlain. Green was a
South Carolina Unionist, a lawyer of ability against whom it was
impossible to find anything to hang a charge on. Chamberlain was the
most brilliant of all the carpet-baggers and after he defeated Green
and became governor of South Carolina he did turn to a great extent
against the rottening thieves who had raised him to that position. His
opposition to black Whipper most dramatically expressed, flashed all
over the United States, when that Northern born Negro was a candidate
for judicial honors, in the piquant phrase—“The civilization of the
Puritan and the Cavalier is in danger”—made this Union soldier from
Massachusetts almost a type of the fighting reformer, and there was
need of such, although, as DuBois claims:

 “—it is certainly highly instructive to remember that the mark of the
 thief which dragged its slime across nearly every great Northern
 State and almost up to the presidential chair could not certainly in
 those cases be charged against the vote of black men.”[212]

But when Chamberlain found, two years later, that in spite of his
attack on those of his supporters of whom he was certainly entitled to
declare that they were worse than he was, he nevertheless could not be
the leader of what was best, he went back to the rotten element where,
as the best of whites and blacks claimed in 1874, he always could be
found when it suited his purpose; for the great mental gifts of the
man made him prefer to reign in hell than serve in heaven. The fight
against him was in 1874 led by Comptroller General Dunn, a Republican
from Massachusetts. The candidates named by the Independent Republicans
were Judge Green, a white South Carolinian, and Martin R. Delany, a
Negro from the North, for governor and lieutenant governor. Allusion
has been made to Delany before. He was born in Charleston, Virginia,
in 1812, the child of a free Negro mother by a slave father. He was
the recipient of an education which enabled him to support himself and
achieve some distinction. He had resided in Pittsburgh for some time;
had been in partnership with Fred Douglass; had founded the first
colored total abstinence society; had moved to Canada and from there
led a party of black explorers through a part of Africa, for which he
had been noticed by the Royal Geographical Society of Britain about the
year 1859; and, returning to America, had served in the Northern army
with a commission.

By General J. B. Kershaw of South Carolina, who with Wade Hampton and
General McGowan all supported the nominees, his absolute honesty was
testified to.

Every effort was made by the bulk of the whites to support this attempt
of the most honest of the Negroes and Republican whites to put honest
men in office, Hampton going so far as to declare in the public prints
over his signature:

 “I look upon it as the imperative duty of every good citizen whatever
 may have been his own previous predilection to sustain heartily
 the action of that convention (of the whites); for our only hope
 is in unity. The delegates to that convention set a noble example
 of patriotism when they sacrificed all political aspirations, all
 personal consideration, and all former prejudice for the single
 purpose and in the sole hope of redeeming the State.”[213]

Most of the notorious Negro leaders supported Chamberlain, R. B.
Elliott being made chairman of Chamberlain’s Executive Committee; but
a great number under Congressman R. H. Cain, Ransier and others, less
notorious than Elliott and Whipper and not as gifted, stood staunchly
for honest government. Cain went so far as to state that Green, who
lacked very little of selection in the Republican convention which
nominated Chamberlain, could have easily obtained the few votes
necessary for such, as they had been offered his supporters at a
comparatively small price; but that he and his friends had refused
to purchase them. He also called to the attention of an audience of
some thousands in Charleston that the white judge he had voted for
as mayor in 1865 was presiding over a meeting supporting this effort
of black Republicans to secure good government. But the most striking
fact that the meeting developed was the entrance into politics of
the profoundest thinker the Negro race has ever produced, William
Hannibal Thomas, author a quarter of a century later of that remarkable
book—“The American Negro—What He Was, What He Is, and What He May
Become.” Thomas had just reached his 31st year. At the close of the
War between the States, while the harpies black and white in 1865 were
winging their way Southward, a wounded United States soldier, he was
lying in a hospital, with his right arm amputated above the elbow,
having volunteered at the outset and rising to the rank of sergeant.
Upon his discharge, after five months treatment, for three years he
was a student of theology, going to Georgia in 1871 to teach. He moved
to Newberry, South Carolina, in 1873 and was admitted to the bar in
January, 1874. As a delegate from Newberry he supported the movement
for reform. During the absence of the committee on credentials, he was
invited to address the convention. It was reported:

 “He made a stirring address in which the Bond Ring was effectually
 shown up. It was time that a stop should be put to crime and fraud in
 the State. It was time that the country should understand that the
 citizens of the South demanded peace and good government. It was a
 fallacy to say that in this movement, the Republicans of the State
 were abandoning their party principles. The plain truth was that the
 people in their might intended to rise and shake off the shackles
 of slavery and political bondage. The colored people had given
 evidence of their earnestness by asking their white fellow citizens
 to join them in this effort. Intelligence and respectability must
 rule in the future and the colored race must see to it that they were
 educated up to the standard. By harmonizing it was not meant that
 either race should give up its party principles. It meant only that
 both the majority and the minority should have fair representation in
 the government and there could be no permanent peace and prosperity
 until this was established. Ninety-nine years ago the American people
 had rebelled against the British Government because they were taxed
 without representation. How could they expect a large minority to
 submit to this now? Our white friends must help us heartily. They must
 not approach us with gloves on. They must convince us that they are in
 earnest and will join us in the effort to reform the government and
 purify the State. I believe they are in earnest in their professions
 this time and it remains for us to receive their proffered help in the
 same spirit in which it is tendered. Beyond a doubt in four or six
 years the white race will be in a majority in this State. It is bound
 to come to this and if we show now that we are willing to share the
 government with them, we will get the same from them when the white
 majority shall have reached and passed the colored vote. It is common
 sense to do this nothing more. He heartily urged upon his race the
 necessity of working for Reform. He said he had been in the Union army
 in the late war but he for one was ready to shake hands across the
 bloody chasm and forget the past and unite with the Conservatives in
 securing wealth and prosperity for the State.”[214]

This utterance seems to have won for him a position upon the committee
on platform of five white and six colored members, one of the latter
Cain, a congressman; yet Thomas was selected to submit it to the
convention. Except in minor particulars it was the same as that which
the convention nominating Chamberlain had framed, a not unreasonable
platform for a Negro to support in 1874 in South Carolina, although
scarcely acceptable in all its planks to the whites. In a total vote
cast of 149,221, Judge Green was defeated by a majority against him of
11,585. Yet the strength of the vote cast against him was not without
its effect upon the brilliant Chamberlain, who, from that time, shed
his former skin and became a reformer.

How far a question which just about this time arose in the Episcopal
Church may have affected political conditions is not to be asserted
positively; but that it did affect the minds of whites and blacks can
hardly be doubted, for, to not a few it was, above all, a religious
question. And a religious question, to not a few, calls for sacrifice.

In the year 1875 there was presented in the Diocesan Convention of
the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina the application of
a colored congregation for admission into union with the Convention,
which application was referred to a committee to be appointed by the
bishop to examine into and report upon in the following year.

In the minds of many men in the Southern States the admission of Negro
delegates involved consequences which might be far reaching and this
was very plainly presented in one of the two reports presented in 1876.
This report opposing admission presented the matter in these words in
part:

 “The members of this congregation with very few exceptions are
 mulattoes, many of whom were free before the war and were known as
 a peculiar class in our community, owning slaves themselves and
 generally avoiding intercourse with those who were entirely black.
 Some of this class had established with their former masters and among
 our white people generally reputations for integrity and civility....
 The females of this class sometimes held relations with white men
 which they seemed to consider and respect, very much like, if not
 truly marriage. The results of such associations are numerous in our
 streets. It is this class in which miscegenation is seen and which
 tempts to miscegenation. If miscegenation should be encouraged among
 us, then this class should be cherished and advanced.”[215]

The mover of this report might have gone further. He might have shown
the evidences of interests in the record office, upon the part of white
men by deed and will from time to time, in the recognition, to some
extent, of the claims on paternity. How powerful this appeal could
become to some is evidenced most strikingly in a will made as far back
as 1814,[216] and the value, therefore, of this presentation at the
Convention lay in the fact that it turned attention full upon that
phase of this question which Southern white men are most apt to ignore.

The imagination of the average Southern white man does become intensely
excited over any intimation of that form of intercourse between the
races which is most distasteful and repugnant to the whites, but from
which there is the least likelihood of miscegenation to any perceptible
degree. The imagination of the Southern white man is not, however,
keenly alive to the steady, continuous progress, almost inevitably
resulting from the presence side by side in one section of great
numbers of the two races. Yet if miscegenation is a danger, it is not
less so while proceeding in the way in which it is most insidious and
least shocking to the whites.

To the educated moral mulatto this determined opposition by those who
sought or were willing to accept joint political action, must have
created distrust. When to that, violence grew sufficiently to bring
from Jefferson Davis denunciation, it is not surprising that a man of
the brilliancy and political astuteness of Chamberlain should have
made himself an immense power in South Carolina and drawn to himself a
following which it took every effort of the whites to overthrow.

Indeed, without Wade Hampton, it could not have been effected. In a
convention of 1876, of 165 members, the leader of the Straightout
faction could not gather more than 42 votes.[217] But in August of the
same year when Hampton[218] threw the weight of his personality in its
favor, by 82 to 65, the policy was adopted. It is an interesting fact
that while the colored men W. J. Whipper and R. B. Elliott, Cardozo,
Gleaves and H. E. Haynes are all mentioned, the name of W. H. Thomas
appears in no history of Reconstruction that the writer has read.

Cardozo, the Treasurer, was warmly championed by Chamberlain, who
declared of this colored official:

 “Let me tell you that if I knew that your suffrages would sink me so
 deep that no bubble would rise to tell where I went down, I would
 stand by F. L. Cardozo.”[219]

Chamberlain knew and R. B. Elliott, the brainiest of all his colored
opponents, knew that it was useless to try to array Negroes against
such a friend of the colored brother as that; and Smalls, Chamberlain’s
friend, a good natured, bold mulatto, defeated Swails for the
chairmanship, by a vote which indicated what was to be thrown for
Chamberlain as the gubernatorial nominee. Elliott therefore made terms
and was named for attorney general.

Yet during the exciting days of 1876 when both houses of
representatives were meeting, it was W. H. Thomas upon whom the
Republicans depended for brain work. He was made a member of the
committee on credentials and, as chairman, reported in favor of the
seating of the Republican contestants carrying the majority of the
committee with him, although opposed by T. E. Miller, an octaroon or
quadroon of considerable intelligence, who asked for fifteen minutes to
reply to Thomas.

Miller later stated that he had refused to sign the report, because he
thought that the Democratic contestees ought to have been heard. When
he was beaten, he declared he had changed his mind, stating that it was
their own fault, if they were not present, and announcing he was ready
to sign the report. It was reported that Thomas had, upon this second
utterance, made an inflammatory speech; but no part of it was published
by the paper so declaring, which, upon the next day’s report, announced
that in the midst of the stormy session, Thomas offered a prayer.[220]

Thomas was on the committee of Ways and Means and the Judiciary,
and, until the collapse of the Republicans, seems to have been the
individual most relied upon by the Speaker for all the serious work of
the session.

Contemporaneously with the overthrow of the Negro governments of South
Carolina and Louisiana, the report opposing admission of colored
delegates to the Diocesan Convention was sustained.

In 1879 the question came up again in a shape harder to resist and
resting upon the example of the diocese of Virginia. The law-making
power of South Carolina had, however, meanwhile enacted a statute
making it—

 “Unlawful for any white man to intermarry with any Negro, mulatto,
 Indian or mestizo; or for any white woman to intermarry with any other
 than a white man.”[221]

Accordingly the lay delegates firmly opposed any union whatever,
whether of clerical or lay members, with regard to the two races in the
South.

Now if it is borne in mind that not only Calhoun, whose influence
upon political thought in South Carolina had for many years been all
pervasive; but also the profoundest student who has ever studied
America, de Tocqueville, had condemned “all intermediate measures” and
declared that unless the whites remained isolated from the colored race
in the South, there must come either miscegenation or extirpation, at
no time could the forecast of the future of that section have been as
gloomy as that which appeared in the Census figures of 1880.

The white population of Louisiana, which even the war and its losses
had only dropped a thousand or two below the colored, had increased
by an addition of 92,189; but, in the same time, with Reconstruction,
the colored had been swelled 119,445, giving a colored majority of
something approximating 30,000. In Mississippi, where the ante bellum
Negro majority of 84,000 had, by 1870, been reduced to 62,000, it had
now risen to 206,090. But in South Carolina, with a smaller area and
white population, the Negro majority had risen to 212,000. In the five
Southern States, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and
Louisiana, the gain of the white population of only one, Alabama, had
been greater than that of the blacks. Under such conditions discussion
of that which was upon the minds of all was almost unavoidable,
especially as Southern thought, freed from the shackles in which
slavery had bound it, was free to move in whatever direction it saw fit
and, from the pen of George W. Cable of New Orleans, there appeared
“The Grandissimes,” published in 1880 and “Madam Delphine,” in 1881, of
which the color question constitutes what might be called the motif.

The literary excellence of these works won the author a place in art
and they were followed by other works of merit; but so strongly was
the writer finally impressed with that which had first moved him to
write, that in 1885 he dropped for a time the garb of fiction and
voiced his belief in the necessity of a recognition of what he deemed
a great wrong, through a brochure entitled “The Freedman’s Case in
Equity.” To Cable, the portion of the race which was represented by
the mulattoes and the quadroons made the strongest appeal; but he
was not alone in the critical attitude he assumed toward the South.
In the work of Judge Albion W. Tourgee, a Northern soldier, who had
staked his all on Reconstruction, with criticism, was voiced, in “A
Fool’s Errand” by “One of the Fools,” something very much like despair.
Later brooding, however, drew from this author a more critical and
decidedly pretentious study, entitled “An Appeal to Caesar,” a study
of the Census of 1880, from which, with some reason, he prophesied a
speedy Africanization of the South, and in which he called upon the
inhabitants of that section to bring forth fruits meet for repentance
while there was still time.

Certainly there was basis for the claim. At no time had the rate
of increase of the blacks been so high as the Census disclosed in
South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana in 1880. Yet the first
named set herself resolutely against any relaxation of the rule of
rigid separation of the races, and in 1888 brought to a conclusion
the discussion concerning the admission of clerical delegates to the
Protestant Episcopal Convention, by a resolution reciting the “absolute
necessity for the separation of the races in the diocese,”[222]
effected upon a basis, putting all subsequent decisions within the
control of the lay delegates.[223]

In the years in which it had been maintained in the South Negro
supremacy had done more to destroy the belief of the bulk of the
Northern public, as to the capacity of the race to assume the full
duties of citizenship, than any argument of whites could have achieved.
The following extracts from a letter of George W. Curtis at this date
is interesting. Referring to conditions in the fifties, he writes:

 “I was mobbed in Philadelphia and the halter was made ready for me and
 I was only protected by the entire police force merely because I spoke
 against slavery.”[224]

With freedom of discussion assured, he now, in December, 1888, wrote:

 “I am very much obliged by your letter of Nov., I do not think the
 feeling of this part of the country is precisely understood in your
 part. It is in a word this, that admitting the force of all that
 is said about Negro supremacy, the colored vote ought not to be
 suppressed and the advantages based upon it retained. Of course I do
 not say it should be suppressed. I am assuming that there is great
 reason in the remark that under the same conditions the people in
 the Northern States would do likewise, and I ask whether, under that
 assumption, the people of those States ought to expect to retain what
 they are not entitled to? It is unreasonable to ask acquiescence
 in the suppression of legal votes, which makes the white vote in
 Mississippi count more than the white vote in Massachusetts or
 New York. An educational test would be of no avail in a community
 where color is the disqualification according to Mr. Grady and Mr.
 Watterson. I shall be very glad to hear from you and I should like to
 know the reply to the statement, that it is not fair to suppress the
 vote and retain the advantages based upon it.”[225]

The reply of the individual to whom this letter was addressed may well
be omitted, in the light of what follows.

In 1889 two publications appeared from Southern sources most powerfully
portraying the advantages of freedom of discussion and the inestimable
value of that which Mr. Curtis had described as “the fundamental
condition of human progress,”—“the right of the individual to express
his opinion on any and every subject.” The first publication was the
careful, exact and searching analysis of the condition of the mass of
the blacks contained in “The Plantation Negro as a Freedman,” by Philip
Alexander Bruce of Virginia. The second, the remarkable editorials of
Carlyle McKinley, in _The News and Courier_, of Charleston, S. C., upon
the impending movements of the freedmen in the United States.

With a prescience absolutely astounding, when we consider the only
available source of information at that date, the Census of 1880, the
same from which Judge Tourgee had drawn the figures upon which he based
his gloomy prophecy of the speedy Africanization of the South, Mr.
Carlyle McKinley wrote:

 “The Negro question and all questions growing out of it will be
 rendered one hundred fold more easy of prompt and right adjustment
 when the Negroes themselves are more equally distributed throughout
 the republic.”[226]

Differing in toto with the work of Judge Tourgee, which had
unquestionably in some quarters produced a profound impression and one
which was not obliterated until the figures of the Census of 1890 were
published, in 1889 Carlyle McKinley confidently declared:

 “The currents which are moving from nearly every part of the cotton
 belt towards the Mississippi basin will not stop there. The Southern
 States have already all the colored population that they want and
 more than they want. Future movements in the same direction must
 inevitably extend beyond the cotton and cane fields of the region and
 being deflected around the northern borders of Texas spread into the
 vast prairie country beyond or perhaps curve northward into the States
 bordering the Mississippi and its tributaries.”[227]

About a month later the same paper in an editorial entitled—“The
Dispersion of the Colored Population”—admirably outlined the true
policy which should guide since the importation of slaves and slavery
itself had been abolished:

 “The Negro Question, whatever it be, is properly a national question,
 it should be settled on a national basis. It can never be settled
 on any basis while the Negroes are concentrated in one part of the
 country. The first interests of the South and especially of those
 Southern States where the Negroes are in a majority is to effect the
 general distribution of the race more equally throughout both sections
 or to remove the excess of the colored population in the South to some
 part of the western territory which has not yet been occupied.... So
 far as the South is concerned, the Negro Question now is the question
 of how best to promote Negro emigration northward and westward.”[228]

At the time of the publication of these editorials, the State of South
Carolina was represented in the Senate of the United States by Wade
Hampton and M. C. Butler. Both were members of families which had
been identified with the history of the State of South Carolina from
the Revolutionary War. Both belonged to the slave-holding planter
class. Both had served with distinction in the Confederate War, rising
respectively to the grades of lieutenant general and major general; the
former having established a record while in command of the cavalry of
the Army of Northern Virginia, second to none, in handling that branch
of the service. In addition Hampton had, in his own State, been the
leader of the whites in the great political struggle of 1876, in which
the Negro government had been overthrown, in which contest, he had been
ably seconded by Butler. But the Hampton of 1867 had passed through
many experiences since General D. H. Hill had commended his appeal, at
that date, to the Southern Negro to consider the South as his home, and
Green’s campaign of 1874 had probably convinced him that the bulk of
the Negroes preferred the showy flashes of the characterless Elliott
and Whipper to the sober honesty of Delany and Thomas. In the year
that Gen. D. H. Hill, of South Carolina, died, B. R. Tillman pushed to
completion Hill’s educational view with the founding of Clemson; while
to Senator Hampton was propounded the query which the editorials had
suggested, concerning the diffusion of the Negroes:

“Would any injury result to the South from an extensive exodus?”

The reply from that one in the South best qualified to answer such
a question might well stand also as the best reply to the inquiry
propounded by George William Curtis to the author of this work, before
alluded to.

Hampton’s reply exhibited the broad statesmanship of Paul Hamilton,
Joseph Alston and Robert Barnwell in 1803, before South Carolina had
been deluged with slaves, and the brave sincerity of Robert Y. Hayne,
in 1818, 1827 and 1839.

Hampton said:

 “An inconvenience, but no injury. We would gladly see the colored
 people move elsewhere, and we would be willing to suffer any reduction
 of representation that might result from their departure. It would
 deprive us of much of our labor and make it a little harder for the
 present generation, but it would be the salvation of the future.”[229]

Senator Butler then took up the matter, and in the early part of 1890
sought to have enacted by congress a bill providing:

 “That upon the application of any person of color to the nearest
 United States Commissioner, setting forth that he, she or they desire
 to emigrate from any of the Southern States and designating the point
 to which he, she or they wish to go, with a view to citizenship and
 permanent residence in said country, and also setting forth that he,
 she or they are too poor to pay the necessary traveling expenses....
 That it shall be the duty of the Quarter Master General of the Army
 on receipt of such application, to furnish transportation to such.”
 ...[230]

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this bill an
appropriation of $5,000,000 was asked.

The bill excited some interest. It received most naturally the
unqualified support of Senator Hampton, and it was also acceptable to
Senator Vest of Missouri, and other Southern men of prominence; but
it was not only opposed by Northern and Western senators but also by
one at least from the South, Senator Vance, of North Carolina, although
the argument of the latter was marked by neither strength nor depth
of thought. On the other hand the argument with which Senator Butler
presented his bill deserves consideration at some length and is apt
to receive it in the future. While presented in a different style, it
is comparable to the utterance of the great orator and debater of his
State, Senator Hayne, upon somewhat the same subject in 1827.

Senator Butler said:

 “I shall confine myself to a dispassionate and simple statement of
 facts and of such reference to events, as candor and truth justify....
 To my mind it is too grave a subject to be diverted by party
 considerations or confined within the narrow boundaries and limits
 of party lines. It is all pervading, momentous and important....
 Whoever concludes, that the quieting of the agitation which concerns
 the political status of the Negro would be a settlement of the
 race question, discloses, how little he knows of its magnitude and
 comprehensiveness and how superficially he looks at it.” ...

Proceeding with his argument Butler suggested:

 “The inquiry will be made why should the Negro move out of the
 Southern States? He will not except on his own volition. There is
 nothing in this bill which coerces him or compels him to move. My
 answer, however, is that it would be for his own good and for the good
 of his white neighbors also. It cannot have escaped the attention
 of the most casual observer that where the Negro remains in large
 masses and exceeds in numbers their white neighbors, they not only
 do not advance, but actually retrograde. It is not needful for any
 intelligent white man to read St. John’s dismal narrative of ‘The
 Black Republic of Hayti,’ or Bruce’s graphic story, ‘The plantation
 Negro as a Freeman,’ or Froude’s ‘Negro in the West Indies,’ to
 establish the truth of the proposition. On the other hand, observation
 and experience convince us, that in regions of the South, where the
 whites are largely in the majority, the Negro is better off and
 the white man is better off. The Negro dresses better and is more
 intelligent and thrifty and the white man is more prosperous and
 progressive.... It is conceded on all hands, that if the Negro is
 to attain the full stature of his manhood, if he is to become an
 independent self-reliant, self-respecting man, and be made fully
 competent to discharge all the high responsibilities and duties of
 life, he must finally rely upon himself, he must elevate himself in
 the moral social and industrial scale by his own exertions, by his own
 self-assertion. To do this effectually, he must have a fair chance
 in an open field. Can he be expected to accomplish this; can it be
 expected of him under the shadow and amid the scenes of dependence
 and inferiority which enshroud him in the surroundings of his former
 debased condition? Take him away from them and allow his pulse of
 freedom to throb unobstructed by the memories and associations of
 his servile bondage. I am not one of those who believe in the total,
 hopeless depravity of the Negro race. I believe that there are great
 possibilities in store for him. I do not undervalue the worth of
 the labor of the Negro in what was accomplished in the way of the
 material development of the South. All that I mean to say is but
 for that kind of labor, the South would have been far ahead of her
 present development.... Nor do I underestimate the obligations we are
 all under to the race for the fidelity and most praiseworthy conduct
 during our depleting civil strife. Whatever fate the future may
 have in store for him nothing can deprive the Negro of this record;
 nothing can destroy or obliterate the strong ties of affectionate
 kindness between him and his former owner.... I repeat Sir it is
 for his good and the good of his future generations, as well as the
 good of his former master and his descendants, that I would have
 him more generally distributed among the great mass of his white
 fellow citizens, from whose energy and thrift and enlightenment and
 progress he can gather hope and inspiring example in his struggle for
 an equal chance in life.... It is not an uncommon thing to hear men
 say—‘Let the negro alone; he makes a good peasant class; he is the
 best laborer we can get for the cotton fields, etc.’ Do not all such
 forget that there is no such thing as a peasant class under our form
 of government? Do they not forget that the Negro is a free American
 citizen, entitled by virtue of his citizenship, if on no other
 account, to equality before the law with the foremost citizens of the
 land, equality of opportunity, equality of rights.... Is it not about
 time, Mr. President that the thinking men of this country, men who
 have some concern for the future of coming generations as well as the
 temporary triumph of party should meet upon the common plane of the
 general good and dispose of this question fairly and humanely?... I
 should welcome such a day as a new era in our history, from which to
 date new hopes for the perpetuity of a constitutional republic.”[231]

It is hardly necessary to state that the bill did not pass. With the
exception of his colleague, Senator Hampton, and Senator Vest, of
Missouri, it scarcely received any support, and yet these Southern men
recognized, more than thirty years ago, what is only now forcing itself
upon the consciousness of the North, because the Negroes themselves
have at last perceived the necessity of it.

But what do the prosperous think of? At this time little or nothing
was known of the two little white republics, the Transvaal and the
Orange River Free State, except that they maintained themselves without
assistance in the heart of South Africa, surrounded by millions of
warlike African savages. To the author of this work it seemed in 1890
worth while for the Northern statesmen and the Northern public to
inform themselves of the views and policies of these people, before
they legislated for the South on matters pertaining to the Race
Problem. These little peoples had had no contact with Southern men.
They came from a different nationality. Would it not be well for our
Northern brethren to study their methods before legislating for the
South? The suggestion was presented to _The New York World_, then
calling for ideas. But that great paper, under Mr. Pulitzer, could not
see the value. Later, although conquered, as the South was, the Boers
have made their views felt in the world.

Was not an opportunity missed for obtaining helpful information in
advance of Bigelow’s White Man’s Africa? Was not his book an indication
of an unexplored field? Did it not influence opinion in the north of
the United States?


FOOTNOTES:

[178] Compendium of the U. S. Census 1870, p. 14.

[179] List of Taxpayers, Charleston, S. C. 1859.

[180] _Charleston Courier_, April 7, 1865.

[181] Ibid.

[182] Ibid. May 26, 1865.

[183] Ibid. Dec. 27, 1865.

[184] Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, p. 30.

[185] Reynolds, Reconstruction in South Carolina, p. 5.

[186] _Charleston Courier_, June 19, 1865.

[187] Ibid. July 18, 1865.

[188] Ibid. Dec. 7, 1865.

[189] Ibid. June 30, 1865.

[190] Ibid. Aug. 1, 1865.

[191] Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 45.

[192] Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, pp. 56, 57.

[193] Statutes S. C. Vol. 13, p. 299.

[194] Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, pp. 57, 58.

[195] Ibid. p. 58.

[196] Statutes, S. C. Vol. 13, p. 246.

[197] Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 46.

[198] Statutes S. C. Vol. 13, p. 251.

[199] Ibid. p. 286.

[200] Booker T. Washington, Up from Slavery, p. 84.

[201] Gen. D. H. Hill, The Land We Love, Vol. I, p. 8.

[202] _News and Courier_, May 13, 1874.

[203] Stephenson, Lincoln, p. 398.

[204] Jefferson Davis, Rise and Fall of Confederate Govt., V. 2, p. 610.

[205] Gen. D. H. Hill, The Land We Love, Vol. II, No. IV, p. 1.

[206] Ibid. Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9.

[207] Ibid. Vol. III, p. 85, No. 1.

[208] Statutes, S. C. Vol. 14, p. 386.

[209] Darragh, Contemporary Review, Jan. 1902, p. 100.

[210] Thomas, The American Negro, p. 298.

[211] DuBois, Reconstruction and Its Benefits, Am. Hist. Rev. Vol. XV,
4, p. 793.

[212] Ibid. p. 790.

[213] _News and Courier_, October 27, 1874.

[214] Ibid. October 3, 1874.

[215] Journal Diocesan Convention, S. C. 1876, p. 25.

[216] Probate Court Charleston, Will Book—L., p. 518.

[217] Reynolds, Reconstruction in South Carolina, p. 343.

[218] Ibid. p. 350, _News and Courier_, August 17, 1876.

[219] Ibid. p. 364.

[220] _News and Courier_, December 1, 1876.

[221] Statutes S. C. Vol. 17, p. 3.

[222] Journal Diocesan Convention, S. C., 1888.

[223] Ibid. 1891, p. 151.

[224] Geo. W. Curtis, Letter to Author, January 19, 1886.

[225] Ibid. December 6, 1888.

[226] _News and Courier_, July 8, 1889.

[227] Ibid.

[228] Ibid. Aug. 20, 1889.

[229] Ibid. Aug. 22, 1889.

[230] Ibid. Dec. 23, 1889.

[231] Ibid. Jan. 17, 1890.




CHAPTER X


As has been heretofore stated, George William Curtis, the most eminent
representative of former abolition sentiment, at that date (1888),
still alive in the United States, had propounded a query to the author
concerning political advantages obtained through the possession of the
suppressed vote swelling the electoral strength of the States, possibly
compelled to suppress its exercise.

Hampton, the most illustrious representative and “one of the most
distinguished leaders”[232] of the overthrown slavocracy, had, in his
reply to a press interview, indicated how little desirous he thought
the South was of retaining any advantage based on its possession, and
his lieutenant, Butler, elaborating the argument, had pressed for a
diffusion of the Negroes throughout the United States.

The fates gave Mr. Curtis the last word.

In _Harper’s Weekly_ in the early part of 1891 appeared an editorial
entitled “A Sign of the Times.” It was in part as follows:

 “The associations, which under the general name of Farmers Alliance,
 are organized throughout the country, are a sign of the times not to
 be overlooked. They are the political form which is given to a feeling
 which is observable on all sides, extending quite beyond the circle of
 those who actually take part in such associations.... The mainspring
 of the movement is hostility to what is called the aristocracy of
 wealth. This hostility is due to the conviction that consolidated
 capital commands special privileges, which are denied to the greatest
 industrial interest of the country, that of agriculture.... The most
 striking illustration of this movement was that in South Carolina. A
 Farmers Convention composed of white Democrats, who were opposed to
 what they called the aristocratic Democratic Ring, made the present
 Governor ‘Ben’ Tillman, the Democratic candidate. His main appeal was
 to the poor whites or ‘buckra’, as they are called, and despite the
 fact that he was opposed by Judge Haskell, a representative of the old
 governing class, who had the good will of most of the colored leaders,
 Mr. Tillman was overwhelmingly elected.... Tillman’s election, which
 was a signal defeat of the old Democratic regime in South Carolina was
 followed by the defeat of the chief representative of that regime,
 Senator Hampton, for re-election to the Senate.... One striking
 incident in the campaign was the speech of a colored Republican, who
 opposed Judge Haskell and who said that Tillman had made both the
 whites and the Negroes readers and thinkers.”[233]

The colored man to whom Mr. Curtis referred was the Rev. Richard
Carroll, of Orangeburg, later of Columbia.

In the early fall of the year 1890 he had, in a letter to the editor of
_The News and Courier_, opposing Negro excursions, given, in addition
to the very sensible views he put forth concerning such, an indication
that he was alive to the greatest need of his race and how best it
might be met. Five years before Booker Washington came upon the stage
and twenty-two before he saw the light, Carroll seems to have seen it
and pointed to it as follows:

 “Our Northern friends are turning their attention to the needs of
 emigrants in the West. We should save money to buy homes while land is
 cheap.”[234]

That Carroll was, at that date, a vigorous, original, independent
thinker and speaker, will be indicated by a fuller description of the
incident which Mr. Curtis alludes to above.

Upon the division which occurred in South Carolina between the
followers of Judge Haskell and Mr. Tillman, the Republican party
in that State, mainly composed of Negroes, had begun to stir and a
convention had been called of the leading colored men of the State to
consider the advisability of endorsing Judge Haskell and supporting his
candidacy, and, the delegates having assembled, a motion was made to
leave the matter to the Republican executive committee. The resolution
obtained support from many members in strong speeches. It was opposed
by one speaker. The following is the newspaper report of the speaker’s
remarks:

 “The Rev. R. Carroll, of Orangeburg, could not approve leaving the
 matter to the Republican executive committee, because he knew the
 committee would endorse the Haskell ticket (How do you know?). Because
 one of the leaders told me so. I am here to oppose the colored people
 taking any action whatever. We have got what we have prayed for so
 long, a split in the Democratic party. Join one side now and we
 will grasp a shadow. Let the thing work. He believed Tillman ought
 to be elected (Voices—‘Oh No’). Well let me talk. Before Tillman
 was nominated, we were all Tillmanites. (Voices—‘No, No’). We all
 rejoiced. We wanted his success. Now he has been nominated. Tillman
 has done us more good than any living man since the war. He made
 colored as well as white people thinkers and readers. Heretofore all
 Democrats went into office on 76 and the Negro Question. Tillman
 came along and let the Negro alone (Voices—‘Hamburg, Ellenton’). He
 put people to thinking of other things than the Negro. He ought to
 be Governor, and if I was a white Democrat I’d cast 10,000 votes to
 reward him. I am not afraid of Tillman. I’m afraid of the men who got
 into his waggon and were pulled into office by him. The white people
 are divided, but the moment that the Negro comes in, they will get
 together (applause). Both parties will turn on the Negro and he will
 have to run to the mountains.... If you endorse Haskell I’ll enter
 politics with 100,000 others (‘Won’t vote for Tillman’). He’ll be
 governor just the same.”[235]

Although Carroll was in a minority, he fought the question to a vote,
replying to the charges with vigorous thrusts and with regard to the
claim that those whom Tillman represented were the lynchers of Negroes
asking: “Were they not led by aristocrats as well as common men?”

In fact Carroll appreciated, in advance, what Mr. Curtis deeply
interested as he was and keen observer also, never quite grasped,
viz., that the dominant faction, in South Carolina, did not intend to
permit the Negroes to participate. And this was in fact the greatest
fact of the Tillman movement and one which made it utterly unlike
all apparently similar efforts in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia
and other Southern States. The head of the camel never having been
permitted to enter in South Carolina, the difficulty experienced in the
other States in removing the camel, when he had completely filled the
tent, was never felt in South Carolina.

In storming his way to place and power, Tillman unquestionably
appealed to a class, the farming class, whom he declared constituted
seventy-five per cent of the white population, and whom he also averred
had been discriminated against. But Tillman really had less prejudice
against the old families of South Carolina than many who opposed his
candidacy. His people before him had been identified with the soil of
South Carolina for generations. His father had held Federal office
under Andrew Jackson, and one of his ablest lieutenants, W. D. Evans,
was, in 1890, still living on the land originally granted his ancestor
in the days of the province of South Carolina.

Once established in power, Tillman was for all classes.

But Mr. Curtis, clean and lovable man as he was, never could entirely
free himself from the feeling that, as an abolitionist, he had felt
toward the class which had led the South through the struggle in behalf
of slavery. He had great hopes that the elevation of Tillman and the
overthrow of the Hampton regime meant a chance for the Negro to come
back to some exercise, even if a restricted one, of the suffrage. He
expected that there would be a marked difference in the feelings and
sentiments of those whom Tillman led and those who had preceded them;
and in a letter of Jan. 21, he thus exhibited it:

 “I do not know if you have seen a paper by the Rev. A. D. Mayo, who
 for ten years has been busily engaged in promoting education in the
 Southern States. He holds that the class which Tillman represents and
 not the old planting aristocracy is the real hope of the Southern
 country, and he makes a very strong statement.”[236]

But no class has any monopoly of selfishness and while it was most
unfortunate for South Carolina, yet it was in accordance with human
nature, that one of the first considerations of the class which had
seized the reins of power in South Carolina in 1890, was to benefit
its own class, by an attempt to perpetuate those very conditions which
for eighty years had done more to injure South Carolina than any one
thing in her history, and which her wisest sons had unavailingly
opposed, viz., the retention of a mass of ignorant, agricultural
laborers, reduced as close to the condition of serfs of the soil as it
was possible in each period to accomplish; for this is what the law,
enacted in most of the cotton States at that date, did in fact bring
about, by taxing out of existence those agencies which might have
relieved the State of considerable numbers of Negroes.

The South Carolina Act, passed December 4, 1891, can stand as typical
of this legislation, which was based upon the determination of the
white agriculturists of the Lower South, constituting as they did about
seventy per cent of the white population, to hobble, well within their
reach, cheap Negro labor. Coupled as the passage of such legislation
was with the fierce declarations against black brutes, with which
the perpetrators of such sought to excuse the numerous lynchings of
this period, it was apparent that, while the vengeance was swift in
overtaking the blacks who violated white women, the pound of cure was
preferred to the ounce of prevention; and so, exposing their women to
that risk which seemed inevitable with the tremendous Negro population
which abounded in the South, the men who made the laws still clung to
cheap Negro labor. It is true that as a whole, in the section covered
even by South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, the white
population had gained upon the Negro population and was at this date
but slightly inferior in numbers, amounting to 2,917,000 whites, to
2,966,000 Negroes, in this black belt; but just what proportion of
whites were absolutely independent of the Negro agricultural laborer
it would be difficult to estimate. That there were then and are now
a very great number, who would profit to a very great degree by an
assisted emigration of Negroes, and that these whites were of the class
whose women folk necessarily were most exposed to the risk which a
juxtaposition of such an immense mass of Negroes presented, growing
race prejudice prevented the perception of, and the members of this
class lent their influence to this injurious legislation formulated as
follows:

 “No person shall carry on the business of emigrant agent in the State
 without first having obtained a license therefor from the State
 Treasurer.

 Section 2. That the term ‘emigrant agent’, as contemplated in the Act,
 shall be construed to mean any person engaged in hiring laborers or
 soliciting emigrants in the State to be employed beyond the limits of
 the same.

 Section 3. That any person shall be entitled to a license, which shall
 be good for one year, upon payment unto the State Treasurer, for the
 use of the State, of one thousand dollars in each county in which he
 operates or solicits emigrants, for each year so engaged.

 Section 4. That any person doing the business of an emigrant agent
 without first having obtained such license shall be guilty of a
 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not less
 than five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand or may be
 imprisoned in the county jail not less than four months or confined in
 the State prison at hard labor not exceeding two years for each and
 every offense, within the discretion of the Court.”[237]

It is doubtful if the injury which had been inflicted upon the South by
the vicious Federal legislation of 1868, had, in any way, been greater
than by its checking the natural diffusion of the Negroes throughout
the Union in consequence of their emancipation and the military
overthrow of those opposing such.

The effect of the legislation of 1868 had been to direct and stimulate
a movement to the South of Northern Negroes and white adventurers which
banked up the Negro population there, taught all to consider themselves
ladies and gentlemen, a fact which is still apparent in the apparel in
which many attempt to perform heavy manual work; and, until they were
disbanded in 1890, was most ludicrous, in their military aspirations,
as the Kodak by Johnson shows.

The overthrow of Reconstruction in 1876, did to some degree produce
diffusion and by the Census of 1890 it became noticeable even in South
Carolina, where the Negro population was densest, that while the
numerical increase of the Negroes was still greater there than the
whites, the rate of increase of the former had fallen below the latter.
Yet in South Carolina the Negro population still exceeded the white by
226,296, a greater excess than appeared even in Mississippi, a State
of greater area and with a more numerous white population, where the
excess of the Negro population was but 197,698.

[Illustration: NEGRO NATIONAL GUARDSMAN—SOUTH CAROLINA, 1890

Product of Congressional Reconstruction]

Under such circumstances it was patent that legislation in either State
which tended to restrain the egress of the Negroes, even if temporarily
of industrial benefit to the land owners and agriculturists,
was against the true interest of the State and the people, and,
accordingly, in South Carolina, in the columns of “The Cotton Plant”,
the organ of the South Carolina agricultural class of that date,
the author of this work began an attack upon the law in a series of
articles.

Without asserting that it was in response to this agitation, it
nevertheless is a fact that closely following upon it, in 1893, the law
was amended by the addition of a clause in the nature of a compromise,
namely:

 “That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent emigrant
 agents operating in this State between the 1st day of July and the
 31st day of December of any year.”[238]

This amendment, permitting the opportunity for assisted removal of the
Negroes during that half of the year when such was least liable to
interfere with their contracts for labor, admitted of a gradual removal
of numbers of them and was a concession to public opinion and political
morality by those who, with their votes and influence, controlled the
political situation.

By 1890, it was scarcely to be doubted, that a great change in
sentiment was taking place in the world or rather in those three great
countries which, from their position, were most able to effect the
opinion of the world. In Great Britain, the United States of America
and Germany the extravagantly liberal and humanitarian ideas, with
regard to the race question, which had marked the twenty-five years
preceding 1890, were giving way to something which might be described
by the word race-imperialism. In Germany it made its appearance in many
forms, but more noticeably in the colonial ventures, which off the
coast of East Africa were smeared with a recrudescence of the slave
trade.[239] How it grew in that country and to what astounding lengths
of caste culture it proceeded, would be beyond the scope of this study,
but it might be mentioned that, by Paul Rohrback, without any credit to
the author, Calhoun’s black “substratum” theory was openly avowed as
the basis of colonial expansion.

Great Britain, with the Jameson raid and its _sequellae_, gave an
illustration of race intolerance that shocked the world, but avoided
the use of the black in conquering the white.

In the United States it took shape in the various constitutional
conventions in Southern States, aiming to disfranchise the bulk of the
Negro vote.

It was England, however, that altered the designation of “The Brother
in Black” to “The White Man’s Burden.”

In every way in 1890 the Negro seemed to have failed. His profligacy
was exaggerated, but in his profligacy he had betrayed Judge Tourgee. A
study of the Census of 1890 by the author of this work indicated that
in a total population of 62,620,000 in the United States, 45,770,000
were native whites; 9,240,000 were foreign born whites; 6,339,000 were
Negroes; 1,131,000 were mulattoes; 110,000 were Mongolians and 58,000
civilized Indians.

Comparing the two sections: There were a little more than twice as
many native born whites in the North and West as in the South. There
were about twelve times as many foreign born whites and about seven
times as many civilized Indians with fifty times as many Mongolians,
but there were only one-twelfth as many Negroes and one-fifth as many
mulattoes.[240]

                      North & West       South
  Native Whites        31,150,000     14,620,000
  Foreign Born White    8,510,000        730,000
  Negroes                 489,000      5,850,000
  Hybrids                 195,000        936,000
  Chinese & Japanese      108,000          2,000
  Civilized Indians        51,000          7,000

In the eight Southern States, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas there were
6,162,000 whites to 4,480,000 colored persons, and in the first six
named of these 3,599,000 whites to 3,492,000 colored persons. By States
the comparison was as follows:

                   Whites      Colored
  South Carolina   462,000     688,000
  Georgia          978,000     858,000
  Florida          224,000     166,000
  Alabama          833,000     678,000
  Mississippi      544,000     742,000
  Louisiana        558,000     559,000

In the same year in which Tillman had risen to power in South Carolina,
Mississippi had disfranchised the great bulk of her Negro majority
and, with his control of political affairs, Tillman set to work to
accomplish the same thing in South Carolina. By 1895 he had succeeded
in obtaining a constitutional convention and in that year it met.

For almost two centuries the Negroes had been trained in slavery. Then
for a decade they had enjoyed what was much more akin to unbridled
license than liberty. For about twenty years succeeding that they had
been, by every device which could be conceived of, stripped of the
exercise of the franchise and to a very great degree excluded from
jury duty. The proposition was now to exclude the vast bulk of them
legally from the franchise. It is interesting to consider and observe
in what way they received the suggestion; for they were now absolutely
without white aid, and dependent entirely upon such arguments as they
themselves could advance. There was no attempt to hide the purpose.
It was openly avowed that the main purpose of the constitutional
convention of South Carolina for 1895 was to frame a law, by which the
tremendous preponderance of the Negro electorate should be reduced to
an inconsiderable minority. This had been accomplished in Mississippi,
and the inconsistency of the Emigrant Tax Law, restraining in the
State those whom the law makers had to protect the State from, escaped
attention for the time.

Blunt and rough as he was in his political utterances, the prime mover
for this convention, Senator B. R. Tillman, with a breadth of thought
greatly to his credit, sought unceasingly to make it representative
of all factions, classes and conditions of the white population of
the State and, when it finally assembled, it was found to be so. In
addition it contained a sprinkling of Negroes, through the presence of
six Negro delegates from two coast counties, where they were in such
overwhelming numbers as to preclude their exclusion by any methods
afforded by existing laws.

The attitude, behavior and utterance of these six Negroes in this
convention, in the State where twenty years previously the members
of their race had held their most pronounced legislative orgy and to
which they now came, to what they must have realized were the political
obsequies of the race, had in it, sentimentally considered, something
of the pathetic. It should be borne in mind that those who did come now
could only come from those two counties where the Negroes were at their
lowest, if contact with whites was elevating; for, in Beaufort and
Georgetown, the whites composed a very small minority.

It was not a time, however, for sentimental considerations, and to fuse
the general mass of the convention into a condition appreciative of
the scheme it was aimed to present at that stage in the proceedings,
Senator Tillman reviewed at great length and with terrific force the
previous frightful excesses of carpet-bag government and Negro rule in
the State. Upon the adoption of a resolution for the incorporation of
his speech in the journal of the Convention, with a fairness, a milder
man might not have exhibited, he requested that the replies of such of
the Negro delegates as desired to speak, should also be therein printed.

That Negro delegate designated by him as “the ablest man of color
I have ever met,” W. J. Whipper, (Dan. Chamberlain’s _piece de
resistance_ in the seventies), certainly the most notorious of all who
rose to prominence in Reconstruction days, failed to avail himself
of the privilege. While far less able, with a manly determination
distinctly to his credit, Robert Smalls did, and defended his character
with courage. He was accused of corruption. He pointed to the fact
that he had been pardoned, and he claimed with great earnestness that
the pardon had been granted him without solicitation on his part, and
in spite of his urgent demand for trial. While his remarks do not
indicate any exceptional intelligence, nor his reasons for desertion
the clearest conception of what constitutes public morality, there is a
ring of manly courage in his speech which wins sympathy.

After setting forth the above claim, he concluded as follows:

 “Mr. President, I am through with this matter. It should not have
 been brought here. All the thieves are gone, they are scattered over
 the nation; but I have remained here. My race has honored me with a
 seat on this floor and I shall serve them to the best of my ability.
 My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in
 this country proves them to be the equal of any people anywhere. All
 they need is an equal chance in the battle of life. I am proud of
 them and by their acts towards me, I know they are not ashamed of me,
 for they have at all times honored me with their votes. I stand here
 the equal of any man. I started out in the war with the Confederates;
 they threatened to punish me, and I left them. I went to the Union
 Army. I fought in seventeen battles to make glorious and perpetuate
 the flag that some of you trampled under your feet. Innocent of every
 charge attempted to be made here against me, no act or word of yours
 can in any way blur the record that I have made at home and abroad.
 Mr. President, I am through and shall not hereafter notice any
 personal remark. You have the facts in the case, by them I ask to be
 judged.”[241]

But it must not be imagined from this, that the speaker was in any
sense hacked. On the contrary he continued to participate in the work
of the convention to the best of his ability.

As an amendment to Section 34, of the draft of the Constitution, which
provided—“The marriage of any white person with a Negro or mulatto
person who shall have one-eighth or more Negro blood, shall be unlawful
and void.”—Smalls proposed the addition,—“and any white person who
lives and cohabits with a Negro, mulatto or person who shall have
one-eighth or more Negro blood shall be disqualified from holding any
office of emolument or trust in this State, and the offspring of any
such living or cohabiting, shall bear the name of father and shall
be entitled to inherit and acquire property the same as if they were
legitimate.” But the Convention voted it down and not improperly, for
though clever politics, the concluding clause was vicious legislation.
The amiable boldness of the mulatto Smalls won for him, however,
general tolerance and some regard; but he was not intellectually in the
class with that octaroon, Thomas E. Miller, who, in the minds of most
persons, made on this occasion the greatest display of talent.

Miller made many speeches and furnished much acceptable copy for the
press. He, therefore, not unnaturally, loomed large in the eyes of the
knights of the quill, and his ablest speech was later utilized, by the
most cultured representative of the race in this country, Professor W.
E. Burghardt DuBois, as one buttress of a defense of Reconstruction, in
a paper read by him at the annual meeting of the American Historical
Association in 1909, which was published later in the _Review_. Still
the speeches of both Smalls and Miller were defensive.

Of another and less known colored delegate to this convention, this
could not be said as denoting his attitude. While bearing himself with
dignity and strictly observing the proprieties of debate, the mulatto
of whom mention is next made, eloquently illustrated the adage, that
“the business of an opposition is to oppose.” The man and his efforts
historically considered deserve some recognition.

James E. Wigg, was born at Linden Park, Bluffton, Beaufort District,
South Carolina, March 25, 1850, the son of a colored woman by a white
man. As a small boy he attracted the attention of Gen. David Hunter,
upon whom he waited at Hilton Head, who, after the war, took him with
him to Washington, D. C., and placed him at Whalen Institute. He was
said to have been well versed in theology, and “an earnest follower of
Swedenborg.”[242] His work in the Convention was marked by a distinct
exhibition of intelligence. He submitted a draft for a constitution
which was creditable, and he proposed an ordinance, to the Committee
on Finance and Taxation, of distinct merit. It constituted politics of
a high order. It was a bold challenge to the white majority, on a line
hard to defend the unfavorable report of the Committee in response to.

Wigg’s ordinance was as follows:

 “Be it ordained by the people of South Carolina, in convention
 assembled, that the Comptroller General, County Auditors, County
 Treasurers and all persons charged with the collections of State
 or municipal taxes, be and are hereby required, to keep separate
 and distinct accounts of all tax returns and taxes paid by white
 and colored taxpayers and that the same be always open for public
 inspection.”

The Convention voted this down, although the subject is known to be one
upon which much loose generalization is continually indulged in as the
basis of political appeals to voters.

But Wigg struck a more telling note than this. The concluding clause of
Article 1, Sec. II being reported:

 “After the adoption of this constitution any person who shall fight a
 duel or send or accept a challenge, for that purpose, or be an aider
 or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of holding any office
 of honor or trust in the State, and shall be otherwise punished as the
 law shall prescribe.”

To this Wigg suggested the simple addition, “or any one engaged in
lynching.”[243] The amendment was voted down, but in what position did
the vote so disposing of it place the law-making whites? How does it
read today?

Wigg’s speech on the suffrage clause, from the standpoint of his
race, was also a strong presentation of the subject, pitched upon a
high plane, eloquent and dignified. No extracts from it will do it
justice. To be appreciated at its full value, it must be read as a
whole. In it was none of that amusing buffoonery, which in another
colored delegate’s remarks so captivated the press representatives;
but it did contain not a little biting sarcasm. It is a speech well
worth the perusal of the careful student of history, who is desirous
of informing himself of the various styles of men, our institutions
and our practices have evolved. But with all that has been stated,
yet the most interesting incident connected with this colored man’s
service in the Convention, was his clash with the strongest and most
influential member of that body, in an impromptu debate, arising almost
accidentally, in which, by no stretch of imagination, can the colored
man be said to have been worsted. That he owed his triumph to the
weakness of the position of his adversary was his fortune, and he used
it to effect.

As has been before suggested, by passing such a law to restrain
the egress of the Negroes, as the new regime had done in 1890, the
inconsistency of declarations concerning the dangerous characteristics
of the race had been made manifest, and in the full tide of his
progress as leader of the Convention, Senator Tillman found himself on
a shoal from which it took some floundering to get again into natatory
water.

As reported in the press the incident appears as follows:

 “Senator Tillman said he would preface his remarks by reading from his
 first or inaugural message, when he advocated township government....
 ‘At that time we were hampered by this Sinbad’s old man, the Negro. He
 is here and he is going to be here and we must look out for the nigger
 in the wood pile.’”

Mr. Wigg (a young colored man) asked Senator Tillman:

 “Do I understand that you object to the presence of the Negro in South
 Carolina?”

 “Senator Tillman: Not a bit, but I would place no restraint upon his
 emigration.

 “Mr. Wigg: Did you not sign a bill calculated to prevent his leaving?

 “Senator Tillman: I never signed such a measure.[244]

 “Mr. Wigg: I mean the act imposing a tax on emigration agents.”

To this distinct specification of the act passed while he was Governor
Tillman at first hastily claimed that it had been passed during his
predecessor’s term of office; but later, on reflection, made a point of
informing the Convention that he found he had signed it and desired,
“to apologize to the State for having done so.”

The author of the Act, a cotton planter from Marlboro, W. D. Evans,
then arose and also apologized for it, and a verbal pledge was given,
that the Act should be repealed. At that time the Act was in its
amended form, only operative for one-half of the year. But so far from
being repealed, the only action concerning it, was the making of it
operative for the whole year as originally drawn, license reduced.

As dissatisfying as such a statement may be to those to whom the
injustice of it, and the disregard of a promise given under such solemn
conditions, is repugnant, it must be borne in mind, that similar
legislation of the State of Georgia had been, in the mean time,
reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and sustained upon
the grounds _inter alia_, that—

 “If it can be said to affect the freedom of egress from the State
 or the freedom of the contract, it does only incidentally and
 remotely.”[245]

The Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, shares with the
Lower South the responsibility for this harsh and unwise restriction
of the right of labor to its fullest wage, as well as the denial to a
peculiarly ignorant and helpless mass of the population, of an assisted
egress from localities where they are said to be such a menace from
their extraordinary numbers, that a setting aside of all law and
depriving of individuals of life without law by mobs is sometimes by
some people justified.

But, while arguing for labor its right to go where it wishes to win its
highest wage, we need not shut our eyes to the rank selfishness of the
industrial agencies, which sweep out of a community the bulk of the
able-bodied males and leave only the dependent women and children as
a burden on it. That, however, could and should be met by legislation
preventative of the breaking up of families simply to meet the demands
of industrial slavery. But the right of the laborer to all that his
work can earn should be protected, nevertheless.

As fruitful as the incidents of this extraordinary Convention were,
in illustration of phases of the Negro question, the most remarkable
of all, however, remains yet to be narrated. It has been previously
stated, that in 1865, when the States of the then defunct Confederacy
endeavored to rehabilitate themselves, as members of the Union, after
Emancipation, but before Reconstruction, both South Carolina and
Mississippi adopted codes, in which were the provisions that “every
person who may have of Caucasian blood seven-eighths or more shall be
deemed a white person,” thus separating such from “persons of color”,
a denomination including all Negroes and mixed blood having less than
seven-eighths of Caucasian blood, who were declared at the same time,
“not entitled to social or political equality with white persons.”

This would appear to have been only another way of stating that those
who did have seven-eighths or more of Caucasian blood were entitled to
social and political equality with the whites. But Reconstruction,
as has been shown, swept this legislation out of existence, in the
attempt then made to place all upon one plane of social equality, and
to punish as severely as a law could be framed to, such as might be
accused of any discrimination of a social nature. This preposterous
piece of legislation was in its turn done away with when Reconstruction
passed away, and in its place there was enacted the law which penalized
marriage between whites and Negroes. In the South Carolina convention
of 1895, an attempt was made to so frame the law, as to make it conform
to the view held in South Carolina and Mississippi in 1865; but to this
there was opposition in the shape of an amendment reading as follows:

 “Sec. 34. The marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto
 person who shall have _any_ Negro blood, shall be unlawful, and the
 parties to such marriage, upon conviction shall be punished as the
 General Assembly may direct.”[246]

Over this amendment to the report of the committee much discussion
arose and among other expressions of opinion, was one from Mr. Sligh
of Newberry, that it would be better to allow any one with only one
sixteenth of Negro blood to raise white, rather than force such, to
raise colored children. Sentiment was, however, against his view, and
the proposed amendment was accepted as above outlined.

But in two weeks, after many renewals of discussion as to the wrong
and injury which might result from accusations apt to be based upon a
proportion so indefinite, according to press report:

 “On motion of Mr. W. D. Evans, Sec. 34, was recurred to, and trouble
 began. Mr. Evans proposed to amend the section by providing that the
 miscegenation law shall not apply to persons of mixed blood, whose
 status is that of white people. Mr. George Tillman stated, that he
 was very feeble, but that he felt compelled to say something on this
 subject. For one, he had felt ashamed when the delegate from Beaufort
 had clapped his hands, and declared that the coons had a dog up a
 tree. He was further mortified to see that the gentleman from Newberry
 (Mr. Sligh) and the gentleman from Edgefield (Mr. B. Tillman) goaded
 and taunted into putting in the constitution, that no person with
 any trace of Negro blood should intermarry with a white person and
 that for such marriage the Legislature should provide punishment even
 beyond that of bastardizing children and adulterizing marriage. Mr.
 Tillman said the Mississippi law forbidding marriage between white
 people with those with more than one-eighth Negro blood is the old
 South Carolina law. If the law is made, as it now stands, respectable
 families in Aiken, Barnwell, Colleton and Orangeburg will be denied
 right to intermarry among the people with whom they are now associated
 and identified. At least one hundred families would be affected, to
 his knowledge. They had sent good soldiers to the Confederate Army,
 and are now landowners and taxpayers. He asserted, as a scientific
 fact that there was not a full blooded Caucasian on the floor of the
 Convention. Every member had in him a certain mixture of Mongolian,
 Arab, Indian or other colored blood. The pure blooded white man had
 needed and received an infusion of darker blood, to give him readiness
 and purpose. It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless
 litigation, of scandal, horror, feud and bloodshed to undertake to
 annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro
 blood. By the rule of evidence traditional notoriety was admissible
 in proving pedigree. The doors would be opened to scandal, malice and
 greed; to statements on the witness stand, that the father or the
 grandfather, or grandmother had said that A or B had Negro blood in
 their veins. Any man who is half a man would be ready to blow up half
 the world with dynamite, to prevent or avenge attacks upon the honor
 of his mother or the legitimacy or purity of the blood of his father.
 He moved the restoration of the section to its original form.”[247]

Mr. George D. Tillman’s effort was successful, and the section, as
finally adopted stands:

 “Art. III, Sec. 33. The marriage of a white person with a Negro or
 mulatto or person who shall have one eighth or more of Negro blood
 shall be unlawful and void.”


FOOTNOTES:

[232] Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Revised Edition (1910) p. 503,
V. 2.

[233] _Harper’s Weekly_, January 31st, 1891.

[234] _News and Courier_, September 15th, 1890.

[235] Ibid. October 16th, 1890.

[236] Geo. William Curtis, Letter to Author, Jan. 21st, 1891.

[237] Statutes South Carolina, Vol. 20,—p. 1084.

[238] Ibid. Vol. 21, p. 429.

[239] _News and Courier_, September 17th, 1890.

[240] Theo. D. Jervey, Migration of the Negroes, pp. 1-2.

[241] Journal of S. C. Constitutional Convention 1895, p. 476.

[242] S. H. Rogers, Letter to Author, December 9th, 1910.

[243] _News and Courier_, October 3rd, 1895.

[244] Ibid. October 26, 1895.

[245] Supreme Court Reporter, Williams vs. Fears Vol. 21, pp. 128-130.

[246] _News and Courier_, October 4th, 1895.

[247] Ibid. October 17th, 1895.




CHAPTER XI


But if, in the personalities of Wigg and others, illustrations had
been afforded of the advancement of the Negro in refinement, culture
and morals, in the mass, the race was by no means fit to discharge the
full duties of citizenship in the South. Even as the most active and
progressive moved out and into other regions, they seemed to bring
to bear upon the question, in propria persona, an argument which was
inclining the inhabitants of the North and West more and more to the
vociferous expression, that the Southern white man best understood the
Negro; that the Negro was better off in the South than elsewhere; and
that the South was the natural home of the Negro.

However else the whites of the North might differ, as Republicans or
Democrats, philanthropists or politicians, there was almost unanimity
of opinion, that the Negro was not wanted in the North. But he was
pushing in.

Despite all his other claims to greatness, therefore, the fact, that he
and his policy furnished the most effective means and instrument for
retaining the Negroes in the South, contributed immensely to the late
Dr. Booker T. Washington’s remarkable hold on Northern sentiment, for
with his rise to fame and financial power, the Negro question took on
a new phase. He had a mission and it is generally considered to have
been to lead the Negroes to manual and industrial training, which it
was in the main, but also its aim in part was to keep the Negroes in
the South; for that is the meaning of: “Cast down your bucket where you
are.”

Booker T. Washington came first prominently into view by the speech
from which the above extract was taken, delivered by him at the Atlanta
Cotton States Exposition, in Atlanta, Georgia, September 18, 1895.
What D. H. Hill had urged for the Southern whites in 1866, Washington
now urged for the Negroes. The Northern people were growing somewhat
weary of the Negroes’ continual appeals for political recognition and
this speech, avoiding such and couched in the most conciliatory phrases
concerning the Southern whites, was a surprising departure. It struck
a popular chord. It was written up in the very best vein by the most
celebrated journalistic correspondent of that period, James Creelman,
then in the zenith of his career of feature writing, as an “epoch
making oration.” This writer, commanding the pages of the most widely
read New York paper of that day, ranked—

 “Professor Booker T. Washington, President of the Tuskegee (Alabama)
 Normal and Industrial Institute, as the foremost man of his race in
 America.”[248]

But Creelman did not stand alone. The editor of the Atlanta
Constitution telegraphed to the North that “the address was a
revelation.”

The Boston Transcript declared: “It dwarfed all the other proceedings
and the exposition itself.”[249]

President Cleveland was even quoted as affirming that “the exposition
would be fully justified if it did not do more than furnish the
opportunity for its delivery.”[250]

The key-note of the speech has been before noted. In addition it
contained two specific declarations, which constituted “the revelation”:

 “1. In all things that are purely social, we can be as separate as
 the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual
 progress.[251]

 2. The wisest of my race understand, that the agitation of questions
 of social equality is the extremest folly and that progress in the
 enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us, must be the
 result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial
 forcing.”[252]

When to these expressions was added the further declaration:—

 “that we shall prosper as we learn to dignify and glorify common
 labor.”[253]—

it was scarcely surprising that the speech was generally accepted in
the South as a renunciation of all hopes of social equality, and an
acceptance of a position for the Negro very near to that which Calhoun
had assigned to him—“the best substratum of population in the world”
for it would be one—“upon which great and flourishing commonwealths
could be most easily and safely reared.”

What fault then could the superficial Southern thinker find with such
a policy? It certainly fitted very admirably with that which Senator
Butler had declared some five years previously it was “not a common
thing to hear men say,” viz., the Negroes make “a good peasant class.”

It is true the Senator had warned his fellow countrymen “that there
is no such thing as a peasant class under our form of government”;
but Washington’s remarks were so much more soothing to the South than
Butler’s warning, that the average Southern man put away from his
contemplation the possibilities dormant in the great mass of Negroes
packed in the South.

And if the Southern man is willing to chance these possibilities, what
reasonable being can blame the more sensibly sectional Northern man,
for his cheerful readiness to finance the experiment?

That, in turning the attention of the race to manual and industrial
training, Washington performed a great work is not to be denied. That,
in influencing many of his people to follow him in such a program,
he has raised the ambition of not a few to a much higher plane than
the race had shown itself heretofore capable of, must be admitted,
and these are great achievements. But it is an error to imagine that
Washington ever made for himself or his race any renunciation of the
aspiration for social equality. He condemned the agitation, not the
aspiration for it. In the opinion of Dr. Washington, “color prejudice”
was incompatible with true greatness of soul, and the highest praise he
could bestow upon a man was that he was destitute of “color prejudice.”

Writing of President Cleveland, he said:

 “Judging from my personal acquaintance with Mr. Cleveland, I do not
 believe he is conscious of possessing any color prejudice. He is too
 great for that. In my contact with people, I find that as a rule, it
 is only little, narrow people, who live for themselves, who never read
 good books, who do not travel, who never open their souls in a way to
 permit them to come in contact with other souls—with the great outside
 world. No man whose vision is bounded by color can come in contact
 with what is highest and best in the world. In meeting men in many
 places, I have found that the happiest people are those who do the
 most for others; the most miserable are those who do the least. I have
 also found that few things, if any, are capable of making one so blind
 and narrow as race prejudice.”[254]

Although of very different temperaments, between the two colored men
Booker T. Washington and T. Thomas Fortune, there seemed to be quite a
sympathy. Washington in his autobiography avers it:

 “In the summer of 1900, with the assistance of such prominent colored
 men as T. Thomas Fortune, who has always upheld my hands in every
 effort, I organized the National Negro Business League.”[255]

T. Thomas Fortune is a man of education and ability. As the editor
for many years of the leading colored paper in the United States, its
columns indicated that he certainly upheld the hands of Dr. Washington.
Indeed he did not hesitate to belabor without stint the heads of such
colored detractors of Dr. Washington as Monroe Trotter of Boston and
others, even administering a rap or two to Professor W. E. Burghardt
DuBois, when the latter failed to keep step with the Washington
procession. But T. Thomas Fortune was of too independent a nature to
be restrained from the expression of his own view, and shortly before
his surrender of his position as editor of “The Age”, he published the
following declaration:

 “The question of the right to marry and give in marriage is at the
 bottom of the whole life of the Republic. The Afro-American who says
 he does not desire social equality is an unmitigated fool or an
 outrageous blackguard, who sacrifices what he should know to be a
 primal right to a subservient purpose.”

Can it be believed that a man sufficiently fearless to make this
declaration and feeling obliged to do so, would uphold at all times
the hands of an unmitigated fool or an outrageous blackguard? It is
difficult to believe it. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
while Washington, with “the wisest” of his race understood: “that the
agitation of questions of social equality was the extremest folly,”
he nevertheless cherished the aspiration. And indeed it would be most
unnatural if he did not.

Bearing all the possibilities in mind, the question is, however,
whether any policy which tends to keep massed in the South so many of
the Negroes as are banked there, is to the best interest of the South,
or the Nation, or conducive of the greatest good to the greatest number?

But Washington did not stand as the unrivalled leader of his race. Two
other members of it criticised his leadership with arguments which
could not be brushed aside too lightly. The first of these compiled
in 1899, what was the most thorough investigation into the conditions
enveloping the Negro at the North, which had been printed up to that
time. The author of “The Philadelphia Negro” is thus introduced by Dr.
A. Bushnell Hart:

 “The most distinguished literary man of the race W. E. Burghardt
 DuBois—an A. B. and Ph. D. of Harvard, who studied several years in
 Germany, and as Professor of Sociology in Atlanta University has had
 an unusual opportunity to study his people.”[256]

Dr. DuBois’s book was an entirely different style of work from the
popular “Up from Slavery” published a year or two later, “with the
painstaking and generous assistance of Max Bennett Thrasher”, as the
autobiography of Washington.

DuBois’s book, “The Philadelphia Negro” is a most carefully made
sociological investigation.

Later in 1903, Dr. DuBois published another volume entitled: “The Souls
of Black Folk”—in which after a preface opening with:

 “Easily the most striking thing in the history of the American Negro
 since 1876, is the ascendency of Mr. Booker T. Washington.”—

followed by a fine tribute to his worth, the author declares:—

 “the time is come when one may speak in all sincerity and utter
 courtesy of the mistakes and short comings of Mr. Washington’s career,
 etc.”

The criticism is this:

 “His doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift
 the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand
 aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the
 burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean,
 if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs. The South
 ought to be led by candid and honest criticism to assert her better
 self and do her full duty to the race she has cruelly wronged and is
 still wronging. The North, her co-partner in guilt—cannot salve her
 conscience by plastering it with gold.... The black man of America
 has a duty to perform, a duty stern and delicate, a forward movement
 to oppose a part of the work of their greatest leader. So far as Mr.
 Washington preaches Thrift, Patience and Industrial Training for the
 masses, we must hold up his hands.... But so far as Mr. Washington
 apologizes for injustice, North or South, does not rightly value
 the privilege and duty of voting, belittles the effect of caste
 distinctions, and opposes the higher training and ambition of our
 brighter minds,—so far as he, the South or the Nation does this,—we
 must unceasingly and firmly oppose them.”[257]

Between “the most distinguished literary man of the race” and “the
most eminent man whom the African race has produced” there was then
a profound difference, for what could be considered, by many, as
the essential element of greatness in the policy of Washington, was
that, for which this critic took him most severely to task, viz, his
willingness that the burden of the Negro problem should be shifted from
the shoulders of the whites to those of the Negroes.

Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the willingness of Northern
and Southern whites, that it should be shifted is not to their credit,
there is a virility in the promulgation of a policy for the Negroes by
a Negro, which seeks to force the Negro “to stand upon his feet and
play the game”, which offsets many imperfections, and for that Dr.
Washington must get credit.

[Illustration: WILLIAM HANNIBAL THOMAS, 1900

Free Person of Color—Ohio, 1860]

The second of the two Negro thinkers who questioned Dr. Washington’s
leadership, has also been quoted by Professor Hart; but of William
Hannibal Thomas, one of the few Negroes of distinct intellectual force
as before narrated, who participated in the struggles of Reconstruction
in South Carolina and emerged, uncriticised, Dr. Hart has but two
allusions.

Of the author of—“The American Negro; What he was; What he is; and What
he may become,” Professor Hart, in his own strong book, only says,
first:

 “He has made admissions with regard to the moral qualities of
 his fellow Negroes which have been widely taken up and quoted by
 anti-Negro writers.”[258]

Second:

 “Thomas, himself a Negro, asserts that the sexual impulse constitutes
 the main incitement of the race, and is the chief hindrance to its
 social uplifting.”[259]

In these two temperate utterances, as put, Professor Hart conveys what
might be understood as disapproval; yet it can be urged in defense
of Thomas’ criticism of his race in the last particular, that it is
paralleled by the assertion of Professor Lombroso, himself an Italian,
concerning Italians, when contrasting them with the English; while,
with regard to the first, it would be difficult to find a paragraph
framed by Thomas more suited for quotation by anti-Negro writers, than
the following in Professor Hart’s book:

 “The Negro preachers are universally believed to be the worst of their
 kind, and very often are. If things that are regularly told by the
 white people and sometimes admitted by the colored, are true, the
 majority of the Southern Negroes, rural and urban are in a horrible
 state both physically and morally.”[260]

Yet whatever the Negro preachers may have been, there is good reason to
believe that, in the cities, their moral tone is improving, and there,
now, high exemplars of morality can be found.

Again, despite his apparent pessimism, the future holds for Thomas a
hope denied to not a few, who are impatient of his probe. Where can be
found anything rising higher in optimism that the following:

 “We believe American Christianity has in the person of the Negro, an
 unmeasured wealth of latent spiritual energy which will be aroused and
 consecrated, when the notion of sacerdotalism is scattered from before
 his clouded vision, when transmitted ethnic fetichism is eradicated
 from his religion and the virility of his nature, bared of empty forms
 of righteousness, is breathed upon by the spirit of God, himself.”[261]

The truth concerning this matter is, that Thomas had gone too deeply
into it to be readily understood by those who have not had their powers
of perception quickened by that daily contact, which teaches so much.
Therefore, while Thomas’s book may seem extremely pessimistic; yet,
when his philosophy is boiled down, it is not very different from what
Dr. Washington is thought to have preached, that God helps him who
helps himself, or as Thomas puts it:

 “Every endowment of manhood and womanhood is within the reach of every
 human being, who puts integrity before material gain, and self respect
 before mendacious folly.”[262]

 “When, therefore, the Negro race acquires in the broadest and best
 sense an industrial education, there will come a radical regeneration
 of Southern social economy, and Negro education will stand then
 for home life, domestic industry, public integrity and national
 welfare.”[263]

To some extent, therefore, the difference between Washington and Thomas
was temperamental. Washington’s optimism led him to declare:

 “Despite superficial and temporary signs, which might lead one to
 entertain a contrary opinion, there never was a time, when I felt more
 hopeful for the race than I do at the present time.”[264]

What these superficial and temporary signs leading to the contrary
opinion were, Washington did not disclose; but Thomas did:

 “I am firmly rooted in the conviction, that Negroism, as exemplified
 in the American type, is an attitude of mental density, a kind of
 spiritual sensuousness; but that each of these characteristics, though
 endowed with great persistency and potency, is nevertheless amendable
 to radical treatment.”[265]

According to Max Nordau, spiritual sensuousness is by no means a
characteristic or state interfering with great achievement; for he
credits Ignatius Loyola with it.

But now to consider the view of this Northern Negro.

With the possible exception of Alfred H. Stone, it is doubtful if, up
to this date, any individual has proven himself better equipped for
the discussion of the Negro question than William Hannibal Thomas. A
comparison might warrant the statement, that if Mr. Stone has enjoyed
the wider range, Thomas has been able to make the more exact study. If
Stone has the stronger mind, and it is still further strengthened with
a fuller culture, Thomas has the more judicially balanced temperament.
Thomas’ work is done. Stone’s has not yet reached its fullest
development. We can, therefore, get a clearer idea of Thomas’ view in
its entirety than we can obtain of Stone’s.

No man has drawn more from his experience than Thomas, and few have
possessed such varied experiences to draw from. Simply and modestly
as he sketches his life and pedigree, the brief recital indicates
opportunities for observation which were most unusual, and, had he
kept a diary, it would have been simply invaluable. Should he ever
publish his impression of the men he has met and the events he has
been connected with, it could not fail to be a most interesting and
instructive book; for to powers of observation, which are unusual, he
unites judgment which is distinctly admirable. Some brief extracts may
put the man and some of his views before the reader.

His book opens with an explanation, indicative of that which he thinks
distinguishes the Negro from the white, characteristic traits rather
than color, after which he briefly states his own pedigree and life
history, as follows:

 “None of my ancestors were owned in slavery, so far as my knowledge
 goes. On my mother’s side I come from German and English stock. My
 maternal grandfather, the son of a white indentured female servant
 by a colored man, was born at Bedford, Pennsylvania, about the
 year 1758. My maternal grandmother was a white German woman, born
 in 1770, and brought up at Hagerstown, Maryland. This branch of my
 ancestry emigrated to Ohio in 1792; and settled near the town of
 Marietta, where my mother was born in 1812. On the paternal side my
 grandparents, who were of mixed blood, were Virginians by birth. My
 father, who was born in 1808, near Moorfield, in Hardy County, removed
 to Ohio before attaining his majority. I was born on a farm, in a log
 cabin, on the fourth day of May, 1843, in Jackson Township, Pickaway
 County, Ohio.”[266]

After reciting the recollections of his youth, his father’s active
interest concerning, and his own sympathy for, the “Underground
railroad”, and his efforts to educate himself, Thomas asserts that
at the outbreak of hostilities he tendered his services in 1861 to
the Government, but was refused admission to the army on account of
color. In a civil capacity, however, he entered the 42d. Ohio Infantry
Regiment, and—

 “was in the Big Sandy campaign with General Garfield, and during the
 summer of 1863, with the Union forces at Cumberland Gap, Tennessee.”

In the fall of that year he joined the 95th. regiment, with which he
remained, until the capture of Vicksburg, when, returning to Ohio, he
enlisted in the 5th United States colored troops, and was appointed
sergeant, and after service in the Department of the James, was in the
assault on Fort Fisher, North Carolina, and lost an arm in the capture
of the city of Wilmington.

Going South to teach, he took up his residence first in Georgia,
later in Newberry, South Carolina, in 1873, and was appointed a trial
justice. In 1876 he was elected a member of the legislature, and after
the fall of the radical governments of the South, “gave up the practice
of law and withdrew from active participation in politics” to devote
his attention to the educational advancement of the freedmen, in
pursuit of which, he “visited every Southern State and community.”[267]

Certainly such a one would seem admirably equipped for the task of
discussing most interestingly and instructively the Negro question, as
a perusal of his book clearly indicates. Why then, is the book not more
popular in the North, where is to be found the great reading public of
the United States?

Despite the advanced civilization of that section, its enlightenment,
and its assimilation of British ideals, with the growth of the material
prosperity of its people, there has grown a belief that money, if
given with sufficient liberality, can cure any trouble. This is more
than hinted at in “The Souls of Black Folk.”[268] How then can it be
other than extremely distasteful to those, so conscious of their great
generosity, to read in place of the encomiums with which the assisted
writings of Washington abound, the following audacious criticism:

 “Our Northern philanthropists, with no trustworthy knowledge of
 the conditions of the freedmen, have neither sought nor acquired
 capable insight into the needs and wants of Negro life. Having been
 influenced by the special pleading of interested advocates, and their
 own imperious convictions, it is consequently small wonder that they
 have hitherto failed to deal with the problem in the most satisfactory
 manner.”[269]

It is true that in considering:

 “The two antagonistic forces which germinated at about the same period
 in the Western world at Jamestown and Plymouth,”

Thomas thinks the product, as well as the seed, of the latter is far
superior; but, to the residents of that portion of our common country,
that has long been axiomatic and does not wipe away the offense of
making admissions with regard to the moral qualities of his fellow
Negroes, which have been widely taken up and quoted by anti-Negro
writers.

Almost it might seem in anticipation of this, Thomas says:

 “In this age of realism illusions should have no place and especially
 in a question of such perplexity as this and one involving such vital
 issues. The Negro above all others should welcome honest criticism,
 for in so doing, he will discover that those who point out faults are
 not always actuated by vindictive sentiments and he may learn that
 timely reproof and wise guidance may be derived even from the censure
 of enemies.”[270]

With regard to the possibilities of improvement, Thomas believes:

 “That rural work constitutes a basis for character building
 incomparably beyond that of any agency within his (the Negro’s)
 reach.”[271]

While Thomas’s view concerning the injury to the South of the presence
in it of the Negro is more strongly put it is the view expressed
by Senator Butler in 1900, and of Senator Barnwell in 1803, in all
probability; yet it is a striking fact that in South Carolina, since
emancipation, after thirty years of experience, we came back to the
view expressed in 1865, and this, in spite of the fact that, as stated
by a great authority on the subject:

 “It is very convenient for the Southern white man to include everybody
 with a trace of Negro blood under the general race designation.”[272]

Mr. Stone cannot include South Carolina as contributing to what he
styles:

 “The combined influence of Northern and Southern white men and of
 Negroes and mulattoes to perpetuate an absurd and unscientific
 fiction,”[273]

for the South Carolina law with regard to intermarriage between the
races does not include every one with a trace of Negro blood as a
Negro. And this brings us up to a consideration of this phase of the
question.

The view of T. Thomas Fortune, on the intermarriage of persons of
different races, has been cited.

DuBois’s, expressed with temperance, is as follows:

 “Among the best classes of Negroes and whites, such marriages seldom
 occur.”[274]

Yet he maintains that:

 “Any legislation against it, is inconsistent with the principle
 of freedom of choice in a matter exclusively pertaining to the
 individual.”

Twenty years later, in “The Comet”, he allowed his fancy fuller play.

When Thomas reaches this point in his discussion, we find neither the
extravagant expression of Fortune, nor the apparently varying views and
fancies of DuBois. Thomas says:

 “There is no doubt that judicious race amalgamation is capable of
 exercising a profound and far reaching influence upon _inferior types
 of people_. Degenerate people are always improved by an infusion of
 virile blood; but the benefits derived from wise race admixture are
 to be found in transmitted capacity not color.... The redemption of
 the Negro is impossible through any process of physical amalgamation;
 it is possible and assured through a thorough assimilation of the
 thoughts and ideals of American civilization.”[275]

Now, as has been shown, Washington thought a color prejudice a thing to
be lamented, and yet he preached for years for the Negroes to remain in
the South; where Thomas says:

 “There is more absolute social equality and personal freedom in
 the intermingling of the races than has ever been obtained in the
 North, where, in the main the public social rights of the Negro are
 respected.”[276]

From which Thomas argues:

 “That should wealth, culture and character come to the great body of
 the Negroes, all trace of race prejudice would disappear from our
 Southern section as effectually as it has been obliterated in Portugal
 and the Latin countries.”[277]

If Washington happened then to hold the same view as the above, even
without expressing it, there was no discord between him and his
lieutenant, Fortune, and therefore, while Mr. Stone was pondering the
problem of the mulatto, Washington, looking with steady eye toward the
future infusion of virile blood, cried to the applauding white people
of the South;—“Cast down your bucket where you are.”

Is it for the best interest of all that the bucket should be cast down
where we of the South are now?

By the census of 1900, Mr. Stone’s State was the one State of the
three, South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana with a Negro majority
in 1890, which showed no improvement in this respect.

Louisiana’s Negro majority of 789 had given place to a white majority
of 78,808; South Carolina’s tremendous Negro majority of 226,926 had at
last felt the beginning of the ebb, and was 225,415; but Mississippi’s
197,708 had risen to 266,430, and, therefore, in Mississippi were the
very worst conditions and those most fruitful for race friction; for
Mr. Stone has declared:

 “A primary cause of race friction is the vague rather intangible, but
 wholly real feeling of ‘pressure’ which comes to the white man almost
 instinctively in the presence of a mass of people of a different race.
 In a certain important sense, all racial problems are distinctly
 problems of racial distribution.... So today, no State in the Union
 would have separate car laws where the Negro constituted only 10 or
 15 percent of its total population.”[278]

In another lecture Mr. Stone had declared:

 “Negroes constitute practically a third of the population in the South
 both city and country. In the North they constitute but one fortieth
 of the city population and only an insignificant, really negligible
 one-ninetieth of that of the country.”

Yet, Mr. Stone quotes as an authority, Booker T. Washington, who
declared:

 “If we were to move four millions of the eight millions of Negroes
 from the South into the North and West ... a problem would be created
 far more serious and complicated than any now existing in the Southern
 States.”[279]

These two statements as they would be generally understood, are
inconsistent with each other and contradictory. If it be meant that
a sudden thrusting out of four million people from one section, and
impelling them into another, as fast as they could be moved, would
precipitate a problem, no one would be foolish enough to deny, or
attempt to deny, that it would. But, as the gradual introduction of
four million Negroes into the North and West could not bring the mass
of them up to more than 10 percent of the whole population, then, in
many respects, the problem would be ameliorated by any policy which led
to their introduction in a reasonable process of diffusion, although it
undoubtedly would dispel some dreams, and give rise to some friction
and considerable inconvenience for a while.

And, that even Booker Washington commenced to see the advantages of
diffusion, became apparent in at least one utterance before his death.

But, before treating of conditions and opinions in 1910, some
information may be obtained from a careful consideration of what moral
advancement the culture of the slave-holding South had produced in that
class of its colored population, which as free persons of color, in the
period of slavery, could themselves hold slaves.

In the city of Charleston, South Carolina, in the year 1859 the
list of taxpayers shows that 353 free persons of color returned for
taxation, $679,164.00 of real estate. They also returned for taxation
290 slaves. Of these tax payers the wealthiest was Maria Weston, whose
return for real estate was $41,575.00, slaves, 14; horses, 1. That was
one-seventh of the value of the real estate returned by the wealthiest
white tax payer in the city and two more slaves. But Maria Weston,
while the wealthiest of the free persons of color in Charleston, was
not very much more wealthy than R. E. Dereef and Robert Howard, and
the average wealth of the free person of color was fairly up to the
average wealth of the whites. The story is told in Charleston that when
the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher visited the city, after the war between
the States he invited himself to become the guest of R. E. Dereef,
who received him with admirable hospitality, personally looking to it
that the great man lacked nothing in the way of comfort and treating
him with perfect civility; but studiously and tactfully avoiding all
efforts upon the part of his guest to establish an intimacy. The great
Abolitionist confided to a white resident his disappointment that
he had met no other member of the family or aroused in the breast of
his host any decided interest in one who had done so much to bring
about emancipation of the Negroes. But his confidant called to his
attention, that he had been treated with admirable and uncomplaining
hospitality, by one whom he had relieved of considerable property. Yet
it must not be imagined that all free persons of color owned slaves.
Of an interesting family, the Holloways, nine taxpayers in all,
the wealthiest returned for taxation, real estate to the amount of
$8,300.00, while the total of the nine summed up $36,000.00, only one
of the nine, however, owned a slave.[280]

It is through what has been preserved by a member of this family,
that we get a glimpse of what may be considered to some extent as the
viewpoint of this class. That the ideal of J. H. Holloway was somewhat
cramped may be admitted; but if so it should also be admitted that the
basis was one of the strongest upon which an ideal could repose. It was
social purity. Holloway’s father, grandfather and greatgrandfather had
all been free men. He was a saddler and harness maker by trade, but
he was nevertheless an aristocrat. He was an unobtrusive individual,
of gentle nature, true to his convictions and very virtuous. Being
opposed to vaccination, he refused to pay the small fine imposed and
went to jail instead, assuring the white judge who expressed his regret
at being obliged to sentence him, that he had no feeling about the
matter, believing the official was doing his duty. The intellect of
Holloway was not extraordinary and to not a few his ambition may seem
small and trifling; but it was pursued with such a patient faith and
pious determination, as to impart to it, in the eyes of some whites in
the same locality, who had accomplished something in life, a dignity
entitling it to respect. His position resembled that of a priest of
a dying cult, to whom the sight of the altars he intensely revered,
more and more deserted, as he advanced in years, but the more added to
the fervor of his worship; and so Holloway, to the day of his death,
remained a devoted disciple of “The Brown” or as it was later called
“The Century Fellowship,” the principle assets of which were a grave
yard and some minute books. Holloway’s life was a living denial of the
charge that the Negro has no interest in the past or future, for to him
both of these periods were of importance. What was most noticeable in
his thoughts was the balance of them.

On his business card: “J. H. Holloway—Harness Repair Shop, 39 Beaufain
Street,” he had caused to be printed a quotation from the Bible—“Let
your moderation be known to all men”, to which he had put the very
practical addition—“in charges.” Upon the other side of the card he had
paraphrased Oliver Wendell Holmes, as follows:

    “Know old Charleston? Hope you do
    Born there? Dont say so, I was too.
    Born in a house with a shingle roof
    Standing still, if you must have proof
    And has stood for a century.”

“The Brown” or “Century Fellowship Society”, which occupied almost all
of Holloway’s leisure thoughts, had been founded in 1790. In 1904 some
ceremonies were enacted upon the occasion of the laying of a corner
stone for the new hall, it was hoped later to erect.[281] The address
of welcome was delivered by a venerable member, ninety-six years of
age, and was very brief. The religious services were conducted by the
rector of the oldest Episcopal Church in Charleston, himself a veteran
of the Confederate war, who, as a major of engineers, had contributed
greatly to the “Defense of Charleston Harbor,” the history of which,
under such caption, as author, he had also preserved. There was an ode
by a member of the Society, and an address by a member of the board of
aldermen of the city, also an ex-Confederate soldier. But a review of
the aims and aspirations of the Society by J. H. Holloway, throwing as
it does a light upon the point of view of a class, not given to undue
exposure of their opinions, was probably the most important utterance
of the occasion.[282] He said:

 “My first proposition is that our society was founded upon right
 principles, having as its foundation stone Charity and Benevolence,
 and its capstone social Purity. Environed as we have been by the
 varied conditions through which we have had to pass and to have
 survived one hundred and fourteen years, with a record no organization
 may be ashamed of, so we may well exclaim “To the Lord be all the
 praise.” Our guests today represent the conditions through which the
 Society has passed during the Century. On the one hand we have the
 dominant race and on the other we have the backward race. The first
 looked with a scrutinizing eye on our every movement, so as to charge
 us with being a disturbing element in the conditions that existed,
 and they made stringent legislative enactments; and the public
 sentiment of the masses was to discourage everything that our Society
 stood for; but fortunately there were the classes in society, and
 as our fathers allied themselves with them, as a consequence, they
 had their influence and protection and so they had to be in accord
 with them and stand for what they stood for. If they stood for close
 fellowship, so did our Fathers. If they stood for high incentive, so
 did our Fathers. If they stood for slavery, so did our Fathers, to
 a certain extent. But they sympathized with the oppressed, for they
 had to endure some of it, and fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind,
 and many times they had as individuals helped slaves to buy their
 freedom, and on one occasion our records prove that the Society loaned
 one of their members the money to purchase his family. Our Fathers
 were public spirited, for our records prove, that from 1811 to 1814
 the Society was interested in the defense of Charleston. So under
 perplexing conditions our Society passed more than three score and
 ten years of existence until the war of the sixties and while their
 material prosperity was at stake, their sympathies were with the side
 that promised more liberties and larger opportunities; however, the
 members of the Society, not as an organization, but as individuals
 became the firemen to protect the city from flames caused at times
 by the shelling of the city. We have proof that some of the sons of
 our members wore the Blue, and at least one contributed his life
 blood for freedom at the charge of Battery Wagner under the lead of
 the brave Col. Shaw, of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, and thus
 the blood of South Carolina and Massachusetts mingled as in the case
 of the Revolution.... The change of conditions after the War did not
 make any difference with our Society, they continued in the beaten
 path of Charity and Benevolence; but they still kept the compact
 close, feeling that the heritage of the Fathers was only dear to their
 children, and as we had three generations born since the organization,
 we could enjoy social equality among ourselves.... In conclusion I
 will say that we are not responsible for our birth, but God has placed
 us where we could best honor Him, and his command is—‘Honor thy Father
 and Mother that thy days may be long’. So we are honoring our Heavenly
 Father’s command in honoring our ancestry.”[283]

Had Holloway only lived to read the exposition of the subject—“The
Negro in the New World”, which in 1910 appeared from the pen of the
great English explorer and Negro character specialist, Sir Harry
Johnston, he would have learned that:

 “Money solves all human difficulties. It will buy you love, honor and
 respect, power and social standing.”[284]

Would he have accepted this even from this great authority? His
Society was languishing. How was the structure to be strengthened
in 1904? In that year President Roosevelt appointed as Collector
of the Port of Charleston, Dr. W. D. Crum, a colored physician of
that city, a respectable Republican politician, well thought of by
Dr. Booker T. Washington, but not wealthy. To some, who thought the
appointment hardly the fittest, it looked as if the incident was fanned
into a national question unnecessarily; but when it is noted what
its importance appeared to be to men like Mr. Stone, of distinctly
philosophical cast of mind in consideration of the color question; and
further, that upon Mr. Taft’s elevation to the Presidency there was no
reappointment, but instead the incumbent was appointed as minister to
Liberia, it would seem as if there had been question of the wisdom of
the appointment elsewhere than in the South. But whatever difference
of opinion there may have been on the matter of the appointment, it
would have been very difficult to find any reasonable ground for
condemning the appointee in his acceptance; for he would have been less
than a man had he refused it. All through the verbal storm that raged
over it, the appointee remained perfectly silent, concerning himself
solely with the duties of the office, and at the conclusion, when he
departed for Liberia, in a letter to the head of the agency through
which his transportation had been arranged, there was only apparent
warm affection for the spot Holloway had so fondly alluded to, in the
paraphrased lines of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Holloway evidently did not subscribe to the idea of Sir Harry Johnston
as to the power of money to solve all human difficulties, for there
were colored men of means in Charleston at the time. It was character,
and particularly self control, that appealed to Holloway. His
selection, therefore, was W. D. Crum, who had shown that he possessed
characteristics very akin to those which Holloway had shown to be the
ideals of the Century Fellowship Society, although Crum’s forbears had
not been free persons of color before the War of Secession, a matter of
importance to Holloway.

Of another product of the old South a word may be further said for the
benefit of the fiercely prejudiced English authors, who are unable
to believe that any good thing can come out of the slave-holder’s
Nazareth.

[Illustration: JAMES H. FORDHAM, 1891

Free Person of Color—South Carolina, 1860]

James H. Fordham, of the free persons of color before the war, held the
position of a lieutenant on the police force of the city of Charleston,
from 1874 to as late as 1896. He was a light quadroon, who might have
been passed for a Spanish officer. Taciturn to a degree, he discharged
the duties of his office thoroughly and conscientiously. Scarcely ever
speaking, unless spoken to, and apparently never ruffling the white
roundsmen under his command. Yet, in the longest speech he ever made,
backed as it was by appropriate action, he evinced an understanding
of, and devotion to the fundamental principles of democracy which, if
appreciated by the great German people, might have saved them from the
pains and penalties they are now undergoing for subjecting the world to
the exigencies of military ambition.

The occasion of Fordham’s speech was an incident in 1891, occurring
in one of those periodical struggles by which democracy in the United
States perpetually renews its strength at the expense of officialdom.
At the close of a warmly contested and close primary, the successful
faction opposing the municipal administration in Charleston, found it
difficult to bring the result in one ward to a count and decision.
Impatient and suspicious, as the delay wore past midnight, a worthy
but somewhat choleric individual, of the faction announced successful
at every other point hours earlier, denounced the presence of the
police in the poll where the delay was being maintained by the masterly
inactivity of the administration manager.

One of the policemen on duty, ordinarily as amiable as he was strong
and courageous, advanced toward the citizen and angrily challenged the
accusation with the inquiry:

“What right have you to make charges against the police?”

Before the citizen could reply, the quadroon lieutenant sprang from his
horse, pushed through the crowd and, placing himself between the two,
the only colored man in a group of excited whites, firmly but quietly
said to the policeman:

 “What right has he to make charges against you? The right of any
 citizen, at any time to make charges against any policeman, and I am
 here to uphold that right.”[285]

It is useless to comment upon this incident; for, to any one who needed
such, comment would be useless.

As an incident of the growth of caste feeling, twelve years later in
the same locality, a mulatto policeman having arrested a drunken German
for noisily quarreling with his wife upon the public streets was, upon
the demand of the leading hyphenated politician of the city, dismissed
from the force.

In the years which intervened between the events last narrated, the
Democratic president, with regard to whom Dr. Washington had asserted
that he possessed no color prejudice, had concluded his second term,
made illustrious by the firm stand taken by him in the Anglo-Venezuelan
dispute, which had been brought to his attention and fought to a
decision,[286] against the extreme and arbitrary claims of Great
Britain, by that almost forgotten Southerner, William L. Scruggs of
Georgia.

Yet, despite the cloud in which this absolutely proper stand for
justice between nations and maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine involved
him for awhile, on account of the belittling comments of Anglophiles,
Cleveland has passed into history as a strong president and a great
man. He was succeeded in his high office by the gentlest mannered and
sweetest tempered individual who has ever exhibited in such station the
high personal traits which adorned the character of William McKinley.

Whatever these two men thought concerning the color question was no
doubt discoverable; but it was not announced as a new gospel; for
while great in spirit they were not noisily so. They were both great
men. Cleveland, the Democrat, was greater in his public character
and official achievements, the Republican, McKinley, in the personal
integrity and absolute self abnegation which adorned his life and
crowned his end. Cleveland opposed to malfeasance a rugged force,
which did much to build up public integrity, lamentably lowered in
Grant’s two terms. McKinley’s respect for law and order was so sincere,
that in his dying moments he interposed to protect his assassin from
the natural fury of the mob, thereby defending an anarchist from the
outburst of anarchy which the vile deed occasioned, and giving, in his
own suffering person, so interposing, the noblest appeal that could
possibly be made against lynching.

The executive who succeeded McKinley was essentially different. No
president of the United States has done as much as Mr. Roosevelt to
wipe out distinctions between white and black. That he should have
estranged Southern whites is not unnatural; that he should have aroused
the enmity of Northern and Southern colored men discloses to what
an extent the Negro is amenable to impulse rather than reason. Mr.
Alfred Holt Stone has discussed three incidents which occurred in Mr.
Roosevelt’s first term. Benjamin Brawley, a colored man, discusses the
even more important incident which occurred in Mr. Roosevelt’s second
term. In the first three Mr. Roosevelt held the centre of the stage, in
the fourth, the Negroes were the actors, Mr. Roosevelt only responding.
Mr. Stone treats the first three, in part, as follows:

 “Three incidents marked the progress of the controversy which
 broke upon the country shortly after Roosevelt’s succession to the
 presidency. These were the Booker Washington dinner, the appointment
 of Crum, and the closing of the Indianola post office. There were four
 parties in interest—Mr. Roosevelt, the Southern press and people, the
 Northern press and people and the American Negro.... The President
 acted clearly within his ‘rights’ in each case. This point must be
 conceded without argument. The dinner episode was in itself no more
 than a matter of White House routine.... Within forty-eight hours, the
 President was being denounced for having crossed the social equality
 dead line through breaking bread with a negro.”[287]

According to Mr. Stone, the attitude of the South was one of general
disapproval, the attitude of the Northern press a defence of the
President. After a searching consideration of some fifty or more pages,
in which Mr. McKinley’s attitude in distributing patronage is compared
to that of Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Stone discusses the attitude of the
Negroes. After taking up in turn various expressions by Professor Kelly
Miller, Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois and Mr. William Pickens, Mr. Stone
asks—“What then is the real meaning of their words?” Mr. Pickens says:

 “—one side advises ‘quietly accept the imposition of inferiority.
 It is a lie but just treat it as the truth for the sake of peace.
 Diligently apply to the white man the title of gentleman, and care not
 if he persists in addressing you as he calls his horse and his dog. Be
 patient. This general disrespect and discrimination will develop into
 the proper respect and impartiality at some time in the long lapse
 of geological ages, just as the eohippus has developed into the race
 horse, and the ancestor of the baboon into a respectable Anglo-Saxon.’
 The other side says, ‘I ask for nothing more or less than the liberty
 to associate with any free man who wishes to associate with me. Your
 colour discriminations, legal or not, are all damnable, inasmuch
 as they draw an artificial and heartless line, give encouraging
 suggestions to the vicious and allow the stronger in brute power to
 force bastardy upon the weaker without remedy. Colour has absolutely
 no virtue for me and however much I am outnumbered I will not retreat
 one inch from that principle. However little my position might affect
 savage opposition, by the God of your fathers and mine, I will never
 by voluntary act or word acknowledge as the truth what I know to
 be the grossest of lies. And you might ask all the truly valiant
 hearts of the world and the ages how they beat toward these contrary
 tenets.’”[288]

It is true this utterance was some five years later; but Mr. Stone
thinks that—

 “without the background of that Wednesday dinner at the White House,
 the canvass which subsequently absorbed and reflected such lurid
 colours would have given us an almost lifeless picture, as tame
 and dull as the usual afterglow of Southern appointments by Mr.
 Roosevelt’s predecessor.”[289]

To his discussion Mr. Stone appends the following interesting little
note:

 “The substance of this paper was embodied in an article submitted to
 several magazines while the Crum and Indianola incidents were being
 generally discussed throughout the country. The article was not found
 available.”[290]

In the same year that Mr. Pickens was declaring with fine oratorical
fervor:

 “Your colour discrimination, legal or not, are all damnable, inasmuch
 as they draw an artificial and heartless line, give encouraging
 suggestions to the vicious and allow the stronger in brute power to
 force bastardy upon the weaker without remedy.”[291]

—three Negro companies in the United States Army indicated, in their
own way, their disapproval of these distinctions. The incident is
treated by Mr. Benjamin Brawley, a colored writer of culture, as
follows:

 “In 1906 occurred an incident affecting the Negro in the army that
 received an extraordinary amount of attention in the public press. In
 August 1906 Companies B, C and D of the Twenty Fifth Regiment, United
 States Infantry were stationed at Fort Brown, Brownsville, Texas. On
 the night of the 13th took place a riot in which one citizen of the
 town was killed and another wounded and the Chief of Police injured.
 The people of the town accused the soldiers of causing the riot and on
 November 9th, President Roosevelt dismissed, without honor, the entire
 battalion, disqualifying its members for service thereafter in either
 the military or civil employ of the United States.”[292]

The author states, that, later, the civil disabilities were, by
President Roosevelt, revoked and he exhibits the terms of a resolution
in the Senate to investigate the matter; but the fact that the
President’s action was sustained[293] apparently was not of sufficient
importance to be made a matter of comment; nor the behavior of the
soldiers.

The President’s comment at the time was eminently sane, just and
commendable. He wrote:

 “The fact that some of their number had been slighted by some of the
 citizens of Brownsville, though warranting criticism upon Brownsville,
 is not to be considered for a moment as a provocation for such a
 murderous assault. All the men of the companies concerned including
 their veteran non commissioned officers instantly banded together to
 shield the criminals. In other words they took action which cannot be
 tolerated in any soldiers black or white, in any policeman black or
 white, and which if taken generally in the army would mean not merely
 that the usefulness of the army was at an end, but that it had better
 be disbanded in its entirety at once.”[294]

The inability of even cultured Negroes to sympathize with the view
of the President was their misfortune rather than their fault. It
indicated that they lacked the elementary principle essential to the
rulership of themselves, much less to the rulership of others.

It was not so much the amount of attention as the amazing attitude
of the vast majority of Negroes capable of understanding what had
occurred, which attended that attention. To the vast majority of
Negroes, irrespective of rank, culture or professions of Christianity,
there was something noble and manly in the behavior of “the veteran
non-commissioned officers”, so absolutely repugnant to the practical
politician Roosevelt, a high type of white. The inability of the
succeeding occupant of the highest office in this country, genial in
disposition, liberal in view; but yet unable to appreciate the flaming
zeal and prompt action, with which a real leader of a free people meets
such behavior in armed underlings, marks a certain weakness in that
Northern white. Such weakness coupled as it was with the behavior of
such public men as Senator Foraker did much to produce the deplorable
incident ten years later so properly stamped with executive disapproval
and inevitable punishment to the last degree.

It is quite possible and to some degree probable that weak and vicious
comments on Roosevelt’s action in the Brownsville matter had something
to do with the Houston riot. The comment also affected the Southern
white man profoundly in his attitude to colored soldiers and policemen.


FOOTNOTES:

[248] Washington, Up from Slavery, p. 239.

[249] Ibid. p. 226.

[250] Ibid. p. 227.

[251] Ibid. p. 221.

[252] Ibid. p. 223.

[253] Ibid. p. 220.

[254] Ibid. p. 228.

[255] Ibid. p. 316.

[256] Albert Bushnell Hart, The Southern South, p. 16.

[257] DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk, pp. 41-58-59.

[258] Hart, The Southern South, p. 15.

[259] Ibid. p. 134.

[260] Ibid. p. 135.

[261] Wm. H. Thomas, The American Negro, p. 165.

[262] Ibid. p. XI.

[263] Ibid. p. 264.

[264] Thomas, The American Negro, p. XXII.

[265] Washington, Up from Slavery, p. 318.

[266] Ibid. p. XI.

[267] Ibid. p. XVIII.

[268] DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk, p. 58.

[269] Thomas, The American Negro, p. 268.

[270] Ibid. p. 141.

[271] Ibid. p. 75.

[272] Stone, The American Race Problem, p. 397.

[273] Ibid. p. 398.

[274] DuBois, The Philadelphia Negro, pp. 366-358-359.

[275] Thomas, The American Negro, pp. 408-410.

[276] Ibid. p. 280.

[277] Ibid. p. 281.

[278] Stone, The American Race Problem, p. 217.

[279] Ibid. p. 53.

[280] W. E. & Cog. List Tax Payers, City of Charleston 1859, pp.
392-403.

[281] Press of the Southern Reporter, p. 1.

[282] Ibid. p. 5.

[283] Ibid. p. 8.

[284] Sir H. Johnston, The Negro in the New World, p. XI.

[285] Jervey, Lecture Chicago University; The Elder Brother, p. 446.

[286] Scruggs, Colombian and Venezuelan Republics, pp. 300, 301, 324,
325.

[287] Stone, American Race Problem, pp. 243, 245.

[288] Ibid. pp. 328, 329.

[289] Ibid. pp. 314, 315.

[290] Ibid. p. 350.

[291] Ibid. p. 328.

[292] Brawley, Short History American Negro, p. 185.

[293] Bishop, Theodore Roosevelt, Vol. 2, p. 27.

[294] Ibid. p. 28.




CHAPTER XII


Despite the incidents related in the last chapter, which might be
claimed to be almost isolated or pertaining to a very small class
of the Negro population, to comprehend clearly all that is embraced
in the diffusion of the Negroes throughout the United States, and
the consequent dissolution of the mass in the Southern States, while
endeavoring to grasp what is so intelligently urged by Mr. Alfred
Stone, concerning “pressure”, the investigator should not fail to
realize that in the Southern States, if the Negro was willing to accept
unreservedly the position of an inferior and a menial, there was
formerly no distinct repugnance to him, per se. In fact, with a small
class, the descendants of slave holders, he obtained and still obtains
tolerance and not a little patronizing affection, being treated in
about the way in which a careless, amiable, hot tempered father might
treat an amusing child.

As long as the child remains a child, it might not be so bad for him;
but the question is what kind of a man does it make of him?

With regard to the views and practices of the whites of the Northern
States concerning the Negro question, they may be divided into three
classes.

The first class, corresponding to a similar class in Great Britain, may
be not unfairly described as a small, sentimental, somewhat hysterical
class, lacking in neither culture, character nor wealth. These
entertain a prejudice in favor of the Negro on account of his color and
previous condition of servitude. At one period in the history of the
United States, wielding power out of all proportion to the wealth,
culture or numbers of its members and representing the disintegrating
force of an idea to “sap the power of rank, of wealth and of numbers,”
it has left its mark on the history of the country in the great
almost incalculable good of Emancipation; and in the terrific injury,
injustice and folly of Reconstruction.

The second class is best described as having no color prejudice. While
considerably larger than the first, it is scarcely the largest in point
of numbers; yet, until very lately, it could have been declared with
accuracy, as the most influential class in the Northern States. It is
true that it must be borne in mind that it has not yet felt what the
most thorough white student of the Race question has described as:

 “The vague, rather intangible, but wholly real feeling of the
 ‘pressure’ which comes to the white man in the presence of a mass of
 people of a different race.”[295]

But, with this reservation, it may be styled as calm, tolerant, kindly
tempered and quite considerate of an opposing view; and, as its
possessors are singularly free from sentimentality, they wield just the
degree of power and influence which is the accompaniment of such great
qualities.

The third class is, in point of numbers, first, and although, today,
the power and influence this class wields is not proportionate to its
numerical strength, it is slowly but steadily increasing its influence.
The great majority of the members of this class entertain towards the
Negro an intense prejudice. Some members of it cannot bear the presence
of a Negro near them in any capacity; being utterly unable to accept
with any patience, from such, the most menial services. Undoubtedly
such a prejudice tends to prevent miscegenation and, without it, all
the laws which may be enacted will offer but a comparatively feeble bar.

On the other hand, wherever there are two races living side by side in
fairly kind feeling, as long as men and women remain creatures of such
an infinite variety of individual tastes, desires, powers of restraint,
passions and appetites, miscegenation, to some extent will prevail, and
such being the case, where the inferior exists in the greatest numbers
there will be the greatest result from it; while, on the other hand,
as the great numbers of the inferior race are lessened, the tendency
toward miscegenation must also be lessened.

This happens from various reasons. First, from the simple fact, that,
with the lesser numbers of the inferior race, there must be lesser
opportunity. Second, from the very important fact that the fewer the
number of the inferior race, the more its members must be brought
into contact with and under the influence of the standards of the
superior race, and absorbing their ideals, with a consequent increase
of personal dignity, and decency; from which will necessarily increase
the disposition to refuse solicitations provocative of miscegenation,
except on terms not readily granted.

From these deductions, it must be apparent, that, in a broadly national
conception of patriotism, as opposed to sectionalism, however
disguised, the natural and slow diffusion of the Negroes throughout
the United States must result in an elevation and improvement of the
condition of the population white and black, taken as a whole; although
it is quite possible, by some portions, which have been perfectly free
from any share whatever of the burden of an inferior race, a share
of the weight and responsibility could then be no longer avoided, or
discharged entirely by sermons to the portions less happily situated,
or the payment of something like a bounty.

Finally, to those Southerners who cherish the wild delusion, that,
with a retention of great numbers of the inferior race in their midst,
a sentiment, backed by laws against intermarriage, is sufficient
protection against miscegenation, the illustration afforded by East
Africa may be pointed to. East Africa lies just south of the oldest
civilization we know of, and has been invaded in the past by horde
after horde of whites.

The Biblical story of Cain and Abel may be taken in part as
illustrative of the two vocations by which mankind slowly arose from
the savage occupation of the hunter to the two higher divisions,
namely, those who tamed the beasts, and those who tilled the soil.

Modern medical opinion is to the effect that no occupation so develops
the physical perfection of humanity as the pastoral vocation; while
reflection would indicate that it must cultivate a stronger set of
characteristics than either hunting or tillage.

Bring into collision in a comparatively primitive state a pastoral
people and one engaged in agriculture and the shepherds and herdsmen
will rule.

But will their contempt for those they have brought under and subjected
to their rule suffice to prevent miscegenation? That is the serious
question for the Southern man.

It is apparent in East Africa, where this contact has existed for
many generations, despite the preservation of every racial prejudice
which marks the Southern white man, the superior race has not avoided
miscegenation, but, upon the contrary, it has steadily progressed,
until distinctions in color are almost gone, and even the more
stubbornly yielding distinctions of facial traits and hair texture are
gradually giving away, and this miscegenation seems to have checked
progress in civilization.

Writing of the two classes of Negroes found near the great African
lakes, the explorer Stanley says:

 “We discovered that there were two different and distinctly differing
 races living in this region in harmony with each other, one being
 clearly of Indo-African origin, possessing exceedingly fine features,
 aquiline noses, slender necks, small heads, with a grand and proud
 carriage; an old, old race, possessing splendid traditions and ruled
 by inflexible customs, which would admit of no deviation. Though the
 majority have a nutty brown complexion, some even of a rich dark
 brown, the purest of their kind resemble old ivory in color and their
 skins have a beautiful soft feel, as of finest satin. These confine
 themselves solely to the breeding of cattle and are imbued with a
 supercilious contempt for the hoeman, the Bavira, who are strictly
 agricultural. No proud dukeling in England could regard a pauper with
 more pronounced contempt than the Wahuma profess for the Bavira. They
 will live in the country of the Bavira, but not in their villages;
 they will exchange their dairy produce for the grain and vegetables of
 the hoeman, but they will never give their daughters in marriage but
 to a Wahuma born. Their sons may possess children by Bavira women, but
 that is the utmost concession.”[296]

All of which indicates great pride still in the superior race; but a
reduction to what is practically two classes of Negroes, as far as the
outside world is concerned. Note Livingston also in Southwest Africa.

But in addition to the reasons advanced why this matter of the
diffusion of the Negroes through the United States should be accepted
as best, there is the consideration that it is inevitable. That it is
in progress can no longer be doubted, although, as Robert Y. Hayne
declared in 1827, it would be, “a very gradual operation.”

The strong grip which the Republican party maintained in Federal
politics for the sixteen years, up to 1912, has in some measure to be
credited to the influx from the South of Negroes into the North and
West, where they most naturally and reasonably vote the Republican
ticket. Indeed it has been positively asserted by one whose devotion to
that party could scarcely, at the time, have been questioned, that they
may have been brought there for this purpose.

Says Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, in his very interesting and
instructive book, “The Southern South”:

 “A systematic effort has been made to settle colored people in
 Indiana, in order to hold that State in the Republican column; and
 there are now probably nearly a hundred thousand there, a third of
 whom settled in Indianapolis, where they furnish a race problem of
 growing seriousness.”[297]

It is true that the Census for 1910 only disclosed in Indiana 60,280
Negroes; but Mr. Hart’s not unreasonable estimate was probably based
upon the preceding Censuses of 1880, 1890 and 1900, alone available in
1910, when he wrote, which did indicate a rising rate of that species
of population, from 15% to 27%, while that of 1910 indicated for that
State a drop of 4.8%. A similar falling off being recorded in Illionis,
where the rate of increase dropped from 49 percent to 28.2 percent, and
in Ohio alone of these three great States, the rate increased. There
it had risen from 11 to 15 percent. Proceeding East, a decline was
also recorded for Pennsylvania from 43 to 23.6; for New Jersey from 47
to 28.5; for New York from 40 to 35.2 percent. The total increase of
the Northern States east of the Mississippi from the year 1900 to 1910
being only 142,363 as against 188,347 from 1890 to 1900; but west of
the Mississippi from 1900 to 1910 the increase was 107,747, as against
51,194 from 1890 to 1900; a total increase in the whole area outside
of the South of about 250,000 against about 240,000 for the previous
decade. At the same time in the South for the decade 1900 to 1910 an
increase of Negroes of only 757,901 as against 1,079,054 from 1890 to
1900, with an actual decrease in the population of the three States,
Maryland, Kentucky and Tennessee, amounting to 33,020.

This would seem to indicate a rate of increase in the South of about
ten percent and outside of the South, in the rest of the United States
about twenty-five percent, up to 1910.

But in connection with the above there is another fact which is of some
importance, and that is the increase of the entire Negro population
of the United States, in 1900 amounting to 8,849,789, as exhibited by
the Census of 1910 was 351,029 less than the increase of the 7,488,788
Negroes in the United States in 1890 to 1900.

What has caused the difference?

The not unnatural but wholly unsatisfactory suggestion of the Census
authorities, that the discrepancy is due to the errors of others
Censuses, should be received with politeness coming from such efficient
workers; but can hardly be taken at its face value. After all the
Censuses are our safest guides, and there is not much reason for
thinking one so very much better than another.

Again, there is a class of reasoners prone to take to themselves the
somewhat comforting conclusion that the Negroes may be moving into the
North and West from the South; but that they cannot live there and die
out; to clinch the argument, they point to Canada, where it is asserted
just about and after the war a great number of Negroes had settled in
Ontario, and certain it is that by the official Census of Canada for
1911, the Negro population had decreased from 17,437 in 1901 to 16,877
in 1911.[298] Yet there are other facts and circumstances leading to
speculations affording explanation of a part of the loss.

From 1900 to 1920, there passed over into Canada from the United States
some 1,318,834 citizens of the latter country, some of whom have been
Negroes, how many mulattoes, not designated.

It is true that, as Negroes, not more than 383 so classified entered
Canada up to 1911, and only 13 during the fiscal year 1910-1911;[299]
but many more under the classification “citizens of the United States;”
must have entered in the light of the following newspaper comments:

 “Winnipeg, Man. February 24, 1911. The Dominion Government today
 decided to stop the immigration of Negroes from the United States,
 and stopped at the boundary a party which intended to go to Western
 Canada.”

By subsequent and fuller accounts it appeared this party numbering 200
were finally permitted to go on and settle, the correspondent of the
London Times, writing to this paper as follows, from Toronto:

 “There has been some discussion in Parliament and in the Press over
 the arrival in Western Canada of 200 Negroes, who will settle in
 the free homestead lands in the Athabasca Landing district, north
 of Edmonton. It is said the movement threatens to become formidable
 and within the year 5,000 Negroes may seek homes in the Peace River
 Country. This, however, is probably an exaggeration, arising out
 of the alarm which the invasion has excited. The 200 Negroes who
 have just arrived entered the country of Emmerson in the Province
 of Manitoba, and were subjected to rigorous examination by the
 Immigration officials, but, under the law, none of them could be
 refused admission. All had money, all were in good health and
 apparently of good moral standing. The least that any head of a family
 possessed in money was $300, and they brought also household effects
 and farm implements. A similar party of 200 came from Oklahoma to
 Canada over a year ago, and settled in the neighborhood of Athabasca
 Landing, where they seem to have prospered, and to have proved
 acceptable to the country.”[300]

The correspondent went on to observe that refusal of homesteads might
arouse “feeling in Washington” and also fail to meet “the approbation
of the Canadian people.” But he thought, if it was the beginning of a
formidable movement from the Southern States, there would certainly
be a demand for as vigorous regulations as could safely be devised to
prevent or limit Negro immigration. From Washington came the news item
that “if it appeared that the Canadian Government had decided to bar
American citizens because of their color, the State Department would
protest”, and later it was asserted that by representations to American
railways interested in the movement, it had been stopped.[301]

In the light of the actual decline in the very small number of Negroes
in Canada’s population, dropping from 17,437 in 1901, out of a total
of 5,371,315 inhabitants, to 16,877 out of a total of 7,206,643 in
1911, the alarm and excitement over this “invasion” is absolutely
incomprehensible. Yet there is a possible explanation in the following
speculation. The Indians in Canada in 1901 numbered, with the half
breeds, 127,914; presumably without, in 1911, they numbered only
105,492. At the same time two origins, “various” and “unspecified,”
increased from 32,999 to 165,655, and it is not at all impossible
that among these 165,655 we may find many mulatto “invaders,” as it
is scarcely possible, no matter how prolific the Indian half-breeds
may have proved themselves to be, that they could have supplied more
than twenty percent of the increase of 132,656, whose origin were not
disclosed in 1911.

Sir Harry Johnston’s estimate of the Negro and Negroid population for
Canada in 1910 was 30,000. It may well have been much more.

Now, of the 4,880,009 Negroes in the United States in 1870, not more
than 584,049 could be classed as mulattoes; while of the 9,827,763
colored of 1910, 2,050,686 are so classed;[302] it, therefore, appears
as if miscegenation is preceding at a pretty rapid rate, the mulattoes
increasing just about twice as fast as the entire colored population;
but while the proportion of mulattoes in the Northern colored
population is still much larger than it is in the Southern population,
the increase of the mulattoes of the South is about four times as great
as at the North. Under these conditions it would be amusing, if it were
not tragic to hear the average Southerner, who thinks he thinks about
the subject, placidly declare that his objection to the diffusion of
the Negro in the United States is that, outside of the South, they
amalgamate with the whites. Of course it is not pretended that this
tremendous difference in the increase of this class in the two sections
is due entirely to a greater amount of miscegenation between whites
and colored in the South than at the North, for there is no way of
ascertaining how many of the mulattoes of the North have in the last
ten years passed on into Canada as “Unspecified” or “Various” in the
“Origin”; but making every allowance which reasonably may be made, it
does not seem as if there is any greater degree of miscegenation at the
North than at the South, if there is as much; while the North possesses
in Canada a safety valve, which practically insures that region from
any serious injury from Negro immigration. How unfortunate, therefore,
it is, that it has not occurred sooner to the Negro leaders, to preach
the advantages to be derived from the members of their race in moving
out to some degree from the South into the West.

Seventeen years after his famous advice—“Cast down your bucket where
you are,” Booker T. Washington gave a glance Westward as follows:

 “There are more than 270,000,000, acres of unused and unoccupied land
 in the South and West. In fact one-half of the land of the South and
 two thirds of the land of the West is still unused. Now is the time
 for us to become the owners and users of our share of the land, before
 it is too late.”[303]

Had Washington directed one-half of the phenomenal energy he exhibited
in the eighteen years of his prominence in endeavoring to keep the
Negroes in the South, towards assisting them in obtaining their share
of the land in the West, what progress might they not have made?

Eighteen years ago, before the great world problem of color had arisen,
there was nothing to chill the zeal of the British Negrophilist; but in
South Africa the British Negrophobe is increasing in numbers and his
influence is also being felt in Canada. Still there are opportunities
for the Negro yet, if the leaders of the race will only awaken to the
necessities of diffusion. But time and tide wait for no man.

As has been attempted to be shown, the idea, not unreasonably
entertained soon after the war between the States, that there was apt
to be with time, a greater and greater increase of Negro population in
the five Southern States, considered as the Black Belt, is no longer
tenable.

Immediately after the war the Negroes were in a majority of 19,808 in
this belt of contiguous States, which the processes and excesses of
Reconstruction did raise to 168,965, discernable four years after its
overthrow. But by 1890 this Negro majority had been reduced to 150,661
and by 1900 to 92,610. In the following decade this black majority
through white immigration and black emigration, was replaced by a white
majority in the so called Black Belt of 423,717; which now has risen to
over a million and a quarter. The increase of whites has been greatest
in the two States in the center of the belt. In the State of Alabama
from the conclusion of the war, the increase of the white majority
has been steady and continuous, rising from 45,874 in 1870 to 320,566
in 1910 and to 546,980 in 1920. The increase of the white majority in
Georgia was less rapid. Reconstruction had cut down the white majority
of 93,884 to 81,773 by 1870, but from the overthrow of Reconstruction
it rose to 254,849 in 1910, and has now reached 482,749. Louisiana’s
Negro majority of 2,114 in 1870, Reconstruction had raised to 28,701
by 1880, but in the forty years which have followed, it has now become
396,354 whites in excess of blacks.

In the other two States progress has been slower.

South Carolina, laden with Negroes to the very gunwales by the subjects
of “King Cotton,” emerged from the storm of war with a Negro majority
of 126,147, which Reconstruction speedily increased in “The Prostrate
State” to 213,229 by 1880, a number so far beyond her small white
population, that even with a decreasing rate of increase, the black
majority had increased by 1890 to 226,926, the decrease of which in
1900 was barely perceptible; but by 1910 had fallen to 156,681 and in
1920 was still further reduced to 45,941. And even Mississippi, whose
Negro majority rose steadily from 31,305 in 1870, to 266,430 in 1900,
dropped in 1910 to 223,338, which by 1920 had fallen to 81,222. This
is in all probability due to the migration which Carlyle McKinley
predicted in 1889, although Hoffman, who published a painstaking work
in 1896, thinking to establish that the Negro was dying out, as “in the
Northern States the colored race does not hold his own, for the deaths
out number the births,” yet concluded that the Negro was—

 “in the South as a permanent factor, with neither the ability nor the
 inclination to leave.”[304]

As in the North and West the numbers of the Negroes have since 1870 to
1920 risen from 250,000 to 1,550,000 and in the South during the same
time from 4,585,000 to 8,990,000, the two assertions above do not hang
together.

When we consider the view advanced by that great writer, the author
of “The American Commonwealth”, we find it very difficult for him to
shake himself loose from the impression that the Negro must remain in
the South, and that it is best that he should, although what he says,
himself, would seem to disprove the assertion. He finds first evidently
by consideration of the census figures up to 1900, that:

 “It is thus clear that the Negro center of population is more
 southward and that the African is leaving the colder, higher and
 drier lands for regions more resembling his ancient seats in the Old
 World.”[305]

Carlyle McKinley, with more prophetic ken, eleven years earlier foresaw
this, but also beyond what is shown above, that from this region the
Negro would move out, North and West.

Mr. Bryce finds:

 “In these hot lowlands the Negro lives much as he lived on the
 plantations in the old days, except that he works less, because a
 moderate amount of labor produces enough for his bare subsistence ...
 he is scarcely at all in contact with any one above his own condition.
 Thus there are places, the cities especially, where the Negro is
 improving industrially because he has to work hard and comes into
 constant relation with the whites; and others where he need work very
 little, and where being left to his own resources, he is in danger of
 relapsing into barbarism.”

The writer lays it down specifically:

 “Contact with the whites is the chief condition for the progress of
 the Negro. Where he is isolated or where he greatly outnumbers the
 whites, his advance will be retarded.... Yet he is often no better off
 at the North where the white laborers may refuse to work with him and
 where he has no more chance than in the South of receiving, except in
 very exceptional cases, any sort of social recognition from any class
 of whites, while in the cities everywhere he is met by the competition
 of the generally more diligent and more intelligent whites. So the
 Negro is after all better off in the South and on the land, than
 anywhere else.”[306]

Contrasting the views of Booker Washington and DuBois, he finds a
cultured group which declare they do not seek social equality with
the whites, yet in spite of the fact, stressed, that where he is
isolated or where he greatly outnumbers the whites, his advance will be
retarded, a condition of the South, building upon such a foundation,
Mr. Bryce does not hesitate to declare, that because, at the North,
“the white laborers may refuse to work with him ... the Negro is after
all better at the South.”

Apparently in the view of this great Englishman, the risk of a relapse
into barbarism is not as serious a matter to the Negro, as exposure
to the cold shoulder or angry scowl of a white laborer; and so he
dismisses the Negro and his future with an attempt to epitomize the
philosophy of Dr. Washington into what is really Mr. Bryce’s imperious
conviction, viz, that there is:

 “no use in resisting patent facts, that all that the Negro can do
 at present, and the most effective thing, that, with a view to the
 future, he could do, is to raise himself in intelligence, knowledge,
 industry, thrift, whatever makes for self help and self respect.”

But even while this epitome was appearing in print for the first time,
the inability of the great author to fully plumb the depths of Dr.
Washington’s political philosophy was shown by the New York Age, the
leading colored paper of the United States, which, upon the nomination
of Mr. Taft for the presidency in 1908, published what was asserted to
be the facsimile of the telegram sent him by Dr. Washington, to the
effect that he expected to see him elected and by his (Washington’s)
people, as no doubt he was, to a very great degree, by their votes in
the Northern States.

If then—

 “a systematic effort has been made to settle colored people in
 Indiana, to hold that State in the Republican column”[307]—

surely a way had been found for the colored man to do more than Mr.
Bryce thought he could. He can move out of that section where in mass
his vote was destructive into that one, in which it is sought, and
there cast it for what he deems his interest.

If in 1908, the Negroes moved into the North for the purpose of
supporting Mr. Taft and defeating Mr. Bryan, they did what they had a
right to do, and under conditions which made it hardly possible that
it could inflict much damage, even if the vote was cast more as a
commodity of merchandise is disposed of, than as an exercise of a free
man’s franchise; for no matter for whom cast, it could hardly swamp
the opposition. When, as a mass of delegates from the South, however,
four years later in 1912, the Negroes assisted Mr. Taft’s friends in
party convention assembled, to secure for him the renomination for
the presidency, against the wish of one, deemed by many as the most
powerful cleansing factor of the Republican party, the evil effects
flowing from so great and determinative occupation with politics by the
Negroes of the South, became so apparent to many earnest Northern men,
that the reported view of Mr. Roosevelt, as to the distinction between
the exercise of the right by the Negro in the South and out of it, did
not seem so strange.

To extreme Negrophiles, of course, it is merely an indication of the
marvelous progress of what is called the Southern “color psychosis.”
It is in fact one of the many illustrations constantly appearing, of
the realization of the fact that, when invested too swiftly and fully
with power and privilege, backward people are apt to stumble; and
in this connection it might be well to consider the morality of the
Negroes of South Africa, thirteen years after the overthrow of the Boer
republics, under whose rule they had been protected from the oppression
of the more savage members of their race; but nevertheless kept in a
distinctly menial condition.

A report appearing in 1913 in that country is, in itself, some evidence
of the value of the suggestion made by the author of this work to the
great New York paper, which in 1890 had invited ideas to be suggested
to it.

An impartial study of the color psychosis of these two little white
republics in a sea of blacks, cut off to a great degree from the
influence of European and American ideas, as they were in 1890; but
evolving not only a people, stated by the London Lancet to be the
finest physical specimens in the world; but also a Botha and a Smuts,
surely must have been of great educational value to the United States.
Here is the report ten years after South African Reconstruction:

 “Cape Town, June 9, 1913: The report of the committee appointed to
 inquire into the assaults by natives on white women shows that the
 misgivings on the subject were only too well founded. The figures
 during the twelve years (from the period of the overthrow of the
 republics to the date) rise from a total of eleven convictions in 1901
 to seventy in 1912. The increase is most in Transvaal, next in Natal
 and then in Cape Colony. Generally speaking the Commission attributes
 the increase mainly to diminished respect on the part of the natives
 for the whites, this in turn being due to a variety of causes, chiefly
 to the contact of natives with degenerate or criminal whites. A potent
 cause of this criminality and degeneracy on the Rand is the illicit
 liquor traffic. The Commission also uses extremely plain language
 regarding what is described as the almost criminal carelessness of
 white women in the treatment of their native house-boys. It has been
 the custom to allow them to bring the early coffee into the bedroom
 of the mistress of the house and that of her daughters, where he has
 an opportunity of seeing them in a state of undress they would not
 dream of showing themselves in to a white man. The Commission states
 that cases, though few, have undoubtedly occurred, in which the white
 mistress or servants have played Potiphar’s wife to the house boy’s
 Joseph. In other words charges have been trumped up. The chief legal
 recommendation is the imposition of a penalty on the intercourse
 of a male black with a female white or a male white with a female
 black.”[308]

The Englishman, in 1921 is just commencing to see some virtue in the
Boer who, until very recently, has shared with the South Carolinian the
distinction of being the most vilified of all people. Like the South
Carolinian, the Boer believes that, between the races, “familiarity
breeds contempt.” Both peoples hold to their views very tenaciously.
No change has ever induced the white people of South Carolina to alter
their attitude against divorce. Perhaps this is one of the reasons
which has induced the advanced thinkers of the higher civilizations to
generalize most fiercely against the white inhabitants of this small
State of the Union.

In 1910, Sir Harry Johnston produced his book “The Negro in the New
World.” The author, a traveler and student, at the suggestion of
President Roosevelt, brought to the consideration of his subject much
knowledge and not a little temper. The aim of the book is popularity.
From a scroll below the map of the Western Hemisphere, the heads of Dr.
Burghardt DuBois and Booker T. Washington project, silent witnesses to
an entirely colored United States with the exception of the tips of
New England and Florida; but as all of England, France and Italy are
colored, no reflection is evidently intended. In his preface, with
amusing naivete, he confesses:

 “Dealing with slavery under the British, I feel obliged to show with
 what terrible cruelties this institution was connected in the greater
 part of the British West Indies, and possibly also in British Guiana
 before 1834. Nor did these cruelties cease entirely with the abolition
 of the Slave Trade and Slavery. They were continued under various
 disguises until they culminated in the Jamaica Revolt of Moratt Bay
 in 1865. Since 1868 the history of the British West Indies, so far as
 the treatment of the Negro and the colored man is concerned has been
 wholly satisfactory, taking into consideration all the difficulties of
 the situation.”[309]

When he reaches that part of his book which is to show:

 “How bad was the treatment of the Negro in the Southeastern States of
 the Union, between, let us say, 1790 and 1860”—he says—“This story
 should be written over again, lest we forget.”[310]

Evidently there is no need to take into consideration any “of the
difficulties of the situation” in the Southeastern States of the Union.
Sir Harry Johnston has been called upon to curse the Southeastern
States of the Union, and being a firmer type of man than Balaam, he
does it thoroughly. But incidentally he exclaims impatiently:

 “Haiti’ I have tried to show is not as black as she has been painted.”

To which he adds the following rich, dark, daub:

 “For very shame she should cease to make the Negro race a laughing
 stock.”[311]

The author has not proceeded a page in his chapter, “Slavery in the
United States” before he begins to inveigh against South Carolina and
Charleston. He tells his readers:

 “In South Carolina the condition of the slaves was often one of great
 hardship, and the slave laws were very cruel.”

He writes of slave insurrections in South Carolina in 1710, 1720, and
1740, and states that in 1760 there was a slave population of 400,000
in Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia; but he fails to mention that
during this period these people were all under British control. He
actually makes it a complaint of South Carolina that: “these were the
people so admired by Gladstone, Kingsley, Huxley and Carlyle.”[312]

The more he writes the angrier he gets with South Carolina:

 “The election of Abraham Lincoln was the last episode which decided
 South Carolina—protagonist of the Slave Powers and rightly so called,
 for it has been from first to last the wickedest of the Slave
 States—to secede from the Union.”[313]

But he cannot keep away from 1740:

 “It was in South Carolina in the first quarter of the eighteenth
 century, that life was made unbearable and short for the unfortunate
 African, and that being driven to mad despair, the Negroes broke out
 in the Charleston revolt of 1740, and attempted (small blame to them)
 to slay the pitiless devils who were their masters.”[314]

The truth about this insurrection is as follows. No insurrection
occurred in South Carolina in 1740; but in 1739, when as Sir Harry
Johnston failed to state, the province was under British control:

 “An outbreak occurred, undoubtedly instigated by the Spaniards at St.
 Augustine. Emissaries had been sent persuading the Negroes to fly
 from their masters to Florida, where liberty and protection awaited
 them.... At length on the 9th of September, a number of Negroes
 assembled at Stono and began their movement by breaking open a store,
 killing two young men who guarded the warehouse and plundering it for
 guns and ammunition. Thus provided with arms they chose one of their
 number captain and marched in the direction of Florida with colors
 flying and drums beating. On their way they entered the house of
 Mr. Godfrey, murdered him, his wife and children, took all the arms
 in the house and setting fire to it proceeded to Jacksonborough. In
 their march they plundered and burnt every house, killed the white
 people, and compelled other Negroes to join them.... For fifteen miles
 they had spread desolation through all the plantations on their way.
 Fortunately having found rum in some houses and drinking freely of it,
 they halted and began to sing and dance. During these rejoicings the
 militia came up and took positions to prevent escape, then advancing
 and killing some, the remainder of the Negroes dispersed and fled to
 the woods. Many ran back to the plantations to which they belonged in
 the hope of escaping suspicion of having joined in the rising; but the
 greater part were taken and tried, some of them who had been compelled
 to join were pardoned; the leaders suffered death. Twenty one whites
 and forty-four Negroes lost their lives in this insurrection.”[315]

There was no Charleston revolt in 1740.

 “In the Northern colonies the only signal disturbances were those of
 1712 and 1741 at New York, both of which were more notable for the
 frenzy of the public than for the formidableness of the menace....
 The rebels to the number of twenty-three provided themselves with
 guns, hatchets, knives and swords and chose the dark of the moon in
 the small hours of an April night to set a house afire and slaughter
 the citizens as they flocked thither. But their gun fire caused the
 Governor to send soldiers from the battery with such speed that
 only nine whites had been killed and several others wounded when
 the plotters were routed. Six of these killed themselves to escape
 capture, but when the woods were beaten and the town searched next
 day and an emergency court sat upon the cases, more captives were
 capitally sentenced than the whole conspiracy had comprised.... Of
 those convicted, one was broken on the wheel, another hanged alive in
 chains, nineteen more were executed on the gallows or at the stake,
 one of these being sentenced ‘to be burned with a slow fire that he
 may continue in torment for eight or ten hours and continue burning
 until he be dead and consumed to ashes.’”[316]

 “The commotion in 1741 was a panic among the whites of high and low
 degree, prompted in sequel to a robbery and a series of fires by the
 disclosures of Mary Burton, a young white servant concerning her
 master John Hughson and the confessions of Margaret Kerry, a young
 white woman of many aliases, but most commonly called Peggy, who was
 an inmate of Hughson’s disreputable house and a prostitute to Negro
 slaves ... Hughson and his wife and the infamous Peggy were promptly
 hanged, and likewise John Ury, who was convicted of being a Catholic
 priest as well as a conspirator; and twenty-nine Negroes were sent
 with similar speed to the gallows or stake, while eighty others were
 deported.... Quack and Cuffee, for example, terror stricken at the
 stake made somewhat stereotyped revelations; but the desire of the
 officials to stay the execution with a view to a definite reprieve
 was thwarted by their fear of tumult by the throng of resentful
 spectators.”[317]

In the more scholarly portions of this book, the author invites
comparison with the great work of Ripley, the American, which
unavoidably detracts from the confidence of the reader in the wealth
of expression of the Englishman. The book is a mass of information,
in which much prejudice is apparent. When he gets down to advice, the
writer informs the reader that what he regards as “a matter of crucial
importance to the civilized Christian Negro,”[318] Mr. Roosevelt
evidently thought non-sense, for that great American informed him, that
he would never—

 “get the colored people of the United States to dress differently to
 their white fellow citizens.”[319]

Sir Harry wished—

 “the leaders of the Negro people to inveigh against these garments
 (frock coats and silk hats) which only look well on two white men out
 of ten, and never look other than ugly and inappropriate on a person
 of dark complexion.”[320]

It is hardly necessary to make any great endeavor to discover the exact
meaning of the author’s mouth filling phrase:

 “If the Imperial destiny of the English speaking peoples of North
 America is to be achieved, they must expect to see their flag or flags
 covering nationally many peoples of non-Caucasian race wearing the
 shadowed livery of the burnished sun.”[321]

For while he tells us that:

 “The eleven States of the Secession have remained to this day (1910)
 apart from the rest of America in their domestic policy towards the
 Negro and people of color with any drop of black blood in their
 veins. Here alone—except perhaps in the Transvaal, Orange State and
 Natal of British South Africa—does the racial composition of a citizen
 (and not mere dirtiness, drunkenness, or inability to pay) exclude him
 or her from municipal or national privilege and public conveniences
 otherwise open to all and paid for by all.[322] Yet with all these
 imperfections in the social acceptance of the colored people of the
 United States—imperfections which with time and patience and according
 to the merits of the Negro will disappear—the main fact was evident
 to me after a tour through the Eastern and Southern States of North
 America; that nowhere in the world—certainly not in Africa—has the
 Negro been given such a chance of mental and physical development as
 in the United States.”[323]

If Sir Harry Johnston, or for the matter of that, his patron, President
Roosevelt, had only been able to study that neglected and impoverished
Negro seer, the only one of the teachers of his people who gave his
blood for their freedom, proving his faith by his works and not by mere
lip service, the repudiation of whom by the Negroes and their leaders
is the severest indictment which could be drawn against the race, they
might have been wiser. But from time immemorial the call to the prophet
has always been: “Prophesy unto us smooth things.”—and W. Hannibal
Thomas having fought in the ranks of the Union army and lived in the
midst of Reconstruction, knew a little too much, despite his exaltation
of the civilization of New England, and his criticism of the South’s
attempt in 1865 to mould again its own, apart from slavery, to ever
be accepted by those who had participated in or were responsible for
Reconstruction.


FOOTNOTES:

[295] Stone, The American Race Problem.

[296] Stanley, In Darkest Africa, Vol. I, p. 384.

[297] Hart, The Southern South, p. 113.

[298] Bulletin XII Fifth Canadian Census, p. 12.

[299] Oliver, Immigration Facts and Figures, p. 9.

[300] _London Times_, April 3, 1911.

[301] Ibid.

[302] Bureau Census U. S. 1910 Bul. 129 p. 15.

[303] _News and Courier_, August 22, 1913.

[304] Hoffman, Race Traits and Tendencies, p. 3.

[305] Bryce, American Commonwealth Vol. II, Rev. Ed. p. 513.

[306] Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 515-537-552.

[307] Hart, Southern South, p. 113.

[308] _London Times_, June 27, 1913.

[309] Johnston, The Negro in the New World, p. VIII.

[310] Ibid. p. IX.

[311] Ibid. p. X.

[312] Ibid. p. 380.

[313] Ibid. p. 363.

[314] Ibid. p. 368.

[315] McCrady, S. C. Under Royal Govt. p. 185.

[316] Phillips, American Negro Slavery, p. 469.

[317] Ibid. p. 470.

[318] Johnston, The Negro in the New World, p. 413.

[319] Ibid. p. 415.

[320] Ibid. p. 413.

[321] Ibid. p. X.

[322] Ibid. p. 476.

[323] Ibid. p. 477.




CHAPTER XIII


The American Historical Association founded about 1889 has accomplished
a great work in purifying the sources from which history has been
drawn. It has stimulated the study of history and has afforded the
field and opportunity for effort. By the Act of Incorporation it shall
report annually its proceedings and the condition of historical study
in America, to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, who shall
communicate to Congress the whole of such reports or such portion
thereof as he shall see fit.

In the year 1909, the President of the Association, invited, from
certain selected individuals, papers on the Negro question limited to
1800 words, for one of the sessions of the Association. This was a
limitation which every white person accepting should have scrupulously
observed and no one should have accepted who was not willing to exert
himself seriously. Yet the tendency of not a few whites to allow
themselves always a little playfulness whenever discussing this subject
seems ineradicable. To the one colored scholar, who accepted the
invitation, the occasion afforded an opportunity not to be permitted to
slip by unimproved, and with admirable nerve, he selected the darkest
decade discernible in the consideration of the subject, as disclosed in
the history of the United States, and addressed himself to a discussion
of “Reconstruction and Its Benefits,” in a paper of about 10,000 words.

In the disregard which he thereby showed of the terms of his invitation
he was justified by his color and his brains and the merit of his
work won for him the widest dissemination of his view. Like Sir Harry
Johnston’s more elaborate book it is polemical; but superior in taste
and style, being free from the little querelous snarls with which the
Englishman garnished his treatise; for if there were sneers in DuBois’s
exposition they were couched in language which passes muster among well
bred people; while the fact that he was in reality an advocate, with a
brief to maintain, accorded him license for such.

The opening could hardly be improved upon by any special pleader.

Writing in 1909, he declares:

 “There is danger today that between the intense feeling of the South
 and the conciliatory spirit of the North grave injustice will be
 done the Negro American in the history of Reconstruction. Those who
 see in Negro suffrage the cause of the main evils of Reconstruction
 must remember that if there had not been a single freedman left in
 the South after war the problems of Reconstruction would still have
 been grave. Property in slaves to the extent of perhaps two thousand
 million dollars had suddenly disappeared. One thousand five hundred
 more millions representing the Confederate war debt, had largely
 disappeared. Large amounts of real estate and other property had
 been destroyed, industry had been disorganized, 250,000 men had been
 killed and many more maimed. With this went the moral effect of an
 unsuccessful war with all its letting down of social standards and
 quickening of hatred and discouragement—a situation which would make
 it difficult under any circumstances to reconstruct a new government
 and a new civilization. Add to all this the presence of four million
 freedmen and the situation is further complicated.”[324]

That the training and the treatment of these ex-slaves became a central
problem of Reconstruction, he admits; yet claims that three agencies,
the Negro church; the Negro school and the Freedmen’s Bureau undertook
the solution, without which, he maintains, it would have been far
graver. But he absolutely disregards that product of ante-bellum
Southern civilization then in the South, 132,819[325] free persons of
color, many of whom were morally and mentally well fitted for what the
Black Codes designed to give them, the suffrage. This element of the
Southern population together with the majority of the House slaves
would have probably furnished a base of about ten per cent of the
total Negro population on which the new civilization would have been
reared, had the South been permitted to test its plan. Having declared
that the economic condition of the eleven States at the close of the
war was “pitiable, their fear of Negro freedom genuine,” Dr. DuBois
maintains, “yet it was reasonable to expect from them something less
than repression and utter reaction toward slavery.”

Admitting that:

 “To some extent this expectation was fulfilled: the abolition of
 slavery was recognized and the civil rights of owning property and
 appearing as a witness in cases in which he was a party were generally
 granted the Negro.”[326]—

he promptly contradicts his own admission, with the assertion:

 “The Codes spoke for themselves. They have often been reprinted and
 quoted. No open minded student can read them without being convinced
 that they meant nothing more nor less than slavery in daily toil.”[327]

Is this true? Can any student be absolutely open minded? A seer is a
receiver and revealer of truths. Such a being can possibly approach
the consideration of a subject with an open mind. One may imagine
Socrates so approaching a subject; but by what process, by what mental
cathartic, does one, who studies, divest his mind of all preconceived
ideas of the subject every time he considers a theory concerning that
which has interested him sufficiently to lead him to seek to know more
of it?

No, the vast mass of us approach those subjects, when we are sincerely
desirous of truth in the spirit of that individual who exclaimed to
Christ—“Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” When the broken,
beaten South attempted to frame the Codes, which no Negro has ever
been able to consider judicially, the survivors could not possibly
approach the condition they were in with an open mind. The greatest
mind that has ever considered our great experiment in government, the
French student De Tocqueville and that strong but shallower mind, that
for so many years had with its resolutions overshadowed all others in
the South, united in the dictum. Abolition means Africanization for
the South. But the whites of the South were to a great extent British
and Northern Irish in stock. They were eminently conservative. A stock
greater in defeat than in victory, as history has shown the British to
be.

To obtain additional strength with which to withstand the flood of
ignorance and incompetence let loose or about to break loose, they
accepted the leadership of the poor white Andrew Johnson, despite the
repugnance they felt for him, as keen and lively as any Englishman
ever felt for Joe Chamberlain or Lloyd George or Ramsay McDonald.
They did more. As far as legislation could affect it, they extended
social equality to the least darkened of the dark race by which they
were surrounded. The political principle, upon which they sought to
adjust themselves to the changed condition, was based apparently upon
the thought that if all the Southern whites and that proportion of
the Colored population constituting about one-tenth, reasonably the
most elevated in the minds of the theorists, from the fact that they
closest approached the whites in physical texture, united, such union
must strengthen the rulers even as it weakened the ruled. Dr. DuBois
therefore is quite wrong when he intimates with some generosity, that
the Black Codes were framed under hasty excitement, in declaring:

 “To be sure it was not a time to look for calm, cool, thoughtful
 action on the part of the white South.”[328]

No, whatever may eventually be found to be the character of the Black
Codes of the beaten South, they bear upon their faces the imprint of
cool, calm, thoughtful action. Even the most cursory consideration of
them will disclose that they were framed more for the irresponsible
freedman than the freedmen in general; for instance, if the freedman
owned a farm or had a permit, the possession of gun, pistol or sword,
otherwise forbidden, was not denied. On the other hand the inhibition
of the right of sale or barter of domestic produce did not apply to
the Negro generally; but to the servant under contract with a master
engaged in husbandry, and not even then, if the servant had written
evidence from such master, or from a person authorized by him, or from
a District Judge, whose oath specifically required him to do what was
required by law “without prejudice for or against color.”[329] In
addition the servant was given the right to—

 “Depart from the master’s service for an insufficient supply of
 wholesome food; for an unauthorized battery upon his own person or
 one of his family, not committed in defense of the person, family,
 guests or agents of the master, nor to prevent a crime or aggravated
 misdemeanor.”[330]

The law went further. It gave the servant the right of departure
coupled with the right to recover wages due for service rendered up to
the time of his departure, for any—

 “invasion of the conjugal rights of the servant, or his (employer’s)
 failure to pay wages when due.”[331]

And not even the death of the master terminated the contract, without
the assent of the servant, for the enforcement of which the servant had
a lien as high as rent. And when wrongfully discharged the servant was
entitled to recover wages for the whole period of service, according to
the contract.[332]

That the master was given the right to administer corporal punishment
to the servant under some conditions cannot be denied; but the
phraseology of the South Carolina Act is:

 “The master may moderately correct servants who have made contracts
 and are under eighteen years of age”—[333] but it also commanded:

 “It shall also be his duty to protect his servant from violence by
 others in his presence.”[334]

Yet it specifically provided that:

 “Corporal punishment is intended to include only such modes of
 punishment, not affecting life or limb, as are used in the army or
 navy of the United States, adapted in kind and degree to the nature of
 the offense.”[335]

Finally, not to prolong the discussion, when we note that the servant
was not liable civilly or criminally for any act done by the command
of the master, for any tort on the master’s premises[336] and that the
former slave holder was not permitted to dispossess the non paying
helpless former slave, for a year and a month from the occupancy of
dwellings belonging to the former master, but occupied without any
return by the former slave,[337] and what elaborate provisions in
detail were made for the care of such in his or her helpless condition,
we will find that we look in vain in England, old or New, for such
humanitarian legislation, at this date. Why then were the Codes
overthrown? Dr. DuBois is prejudiced and naturally so. He is not as
well informed as he deems himself to be; but he desires to be fair and
just; and so we have from this, the most cultured member of the colored
race in the United States, the real reason for “Reconstruction and its
Benefits.”

 “The difficulties that stared Reconstruction politicians in the face
 were these: (a) They must act quickly. (b) Emancipation had increased
 the political power of the South by one sixth; could this increased
 political power be put in the hands of those, who in defense of
 slavery had disrupted the Union?”[338]

So, the terrific losses, which he himself itemizes were not enough. The
beaten South was to be manacled. And how does he picture the victors in
that dreadful hour?

 “There might have been less stealing in the South during
 Reconstruction without negro suffrage but it is certainly highly
 instructive to remember that the mark of the thief which dragged its
 slime across nearly every great Northern state and almost up to the
 Presidential chair could not certainly in those cases be charged
 against the vote of black men. This was the day when a national
 secretary of war was caught stealing, a Vice President presumably took
 bribes, a private Secretary of the President, a chief clerk of the
 Treasury and eighty-six government officials stole millions in the
 whisky frauds, while the Credit Mobilier filched fifty millions and
 bribed the government to an extent never revealed; not to mention less
 distinguished thieves like Tweed.”[339]

Remember this is not a Southerner, black or white; but the most
cultured of Northern colored men, who so describes the conquering East
from which he sprang.

It is scarcely possible to state more comprehensively in less space
than that in which Dr. DuBois describes the effects of Congressional
Reconstruction:

 “When incompetency gains political power in an extravagant age the
 result is widespread dishonesty.”[340]

But he palliates this with the following:

 “The dishonesty in the Reconstruction of the South was helped on by
 three circumstances:

 1. The former dishonesty of the political South.

 2. The presence of many dishonest Northern politicians.

 3. The temptation to Southern politicians at once to profit by the
 dishonesty and to discredit Negro government.

 4. The poverty of the negro.”[341]

He fails to furnish any authorized evidence of the first; but the three
last should be accepted as in some degree exculpatory of the Negroes.

There is something almost pathetic in Dr. DuBois’s description of the
Negroes’ contribution to Reconstruction:

 “Undoubtedly there were many ridiculous things connected with
 Reconstruction governments: the placing of ignorant field hands who
 could neither read nor write in the Legislature, the golden spitoons
 of South Carolina, the enormous printing bill of Mississippi—all these
 were extravagant and funny, and yet somehow to one who sees beneath
 all that is bizarre, the real human tragedy of the upward striving of
 down-trodden men, the groping for light among people born in darkness,
 there is less tendency to laugh and gibe than among shallower minds
 and easier consciences. All that is funny is not bad.”[342]

And this he follows with what he means to be an indictment:

 “—the greatest stigma on the white South is not that it opposed
 Negro suffrage and resented theft and incompetence, but that when it
 saw the reform movement growing and even in some cases triumphing,
 and a larger & a larger number of black voters learning to vote
 for honesty and ability, it still preferred a Reign of Terror to a
 campaign of education, and disfranchised Negroes instead of punishing
 rascals.”[343]

When we reflect that the Confederate generals, Wade Hampton, Kershaw
and McGowan, as has been shown, all supported the revolt of Delany,
Cain and William Hannibal Thomas, against Chamberlain and R. B. Elliott
in 1874 in South Carolina, and that in the columns of “The Crisis,”
today, Elliott is eulogized as a great representative of the colored
race; while no mention has ever appeared of those two Northern Negroes
who most conspicuously opposed the evils of Reconstruction, Martin
Delany and William Hannibal Thomas, we can only acquit Dr. DuBois of
insincerity on the ground of rank carelessness and immovable prejudice.

The summing up of this very interesting defense of Reconstruction
and plea for the Negroes as lawmakers is unquestionably an able
presentation:

 “Reconstruction constitutions practically unaltered were kept in:

  Florida, 1868-1885             17 years
  Virginia, 1870-1902            32 years
  South Carolina, 1868-1895      27 years
  Mississippi, 1868-1890         22 years

 Even in the case of States like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and
 Louisiana, which adopted new constitutions to signify the overthrow
 of Negro rule, the new constitutions are nearer the model of the
 Reconstruction document than they are to the previous constitutions.
 They differ from the Negro Constitution in minor details, but very
 little in general conception. Besides this there stands on the statute
 books of the South today law after law passed between 1868 and 1876
 and which has been found wise effective and worthy of preservation.
 Paint the carpet bag governments and Negro rule as black as may
 be, the fact remains that the essence of the revolution which the
 overturning of the Negro Governments made was to put these black men
 and their friends out of power. Outside of the curtailing of expenses
 and stopping of extravagance, not only did their successors make few
 changes in the work which these Legislatures and Conventions had done,
 but they largely carried out their plans, followed their suggestions,
 and strengthened their institutions. Practically the whole new growth
 of the South has been accomplished under laws which black men helped
 to frame thirty years ago. I know of no greater compliment to Negro
 suffrage.”[344]

It would be idle to deny that these Reconstruction constitutions were
other than most effective.

William Hannibal Thomas, who might be fitly described as in charge of
the rear guard when the Negro government fell in South Carolina and
who has criticised the Black Codes even more severely than Dr. DuBois,
states:

 “The Constitutions of the Reconstructed States were framed by white
 men under the direction and with the approval of the best legal
 intelligence of America.”[345]

They were framed to complete the conquest of the overthrown States, Dr.
Dodd puts it thus:

 “The cause of the planters had gone down in irretrievable disaster.
 For forty years they had contended with their rivals of the North,
 and having staked all on the wager of battle they had lost. Just four
 years before they had entered with unsurpassed zeal and enthusiasm
 upon the gigantic task of winning their independence. They had made
 the greatest fight in history up to that time. Lost the flower of
 their manhood and wealth untold. They now renewed once and for all
 time their allegiance to the Union, which had up to that time been
 an experiment, a government of uncertain powers. More than three
 hundred thousand lives and not less than four billions of dollars
 had been sacrificed in the fight of the South. The planter culture,
 the semi-feudalism of the ‘Old South’ was annihilated, while the
 industrial and financial system of the East was triumphant. The cost
 to the North had been six hundred thousand lives and an expense to the
 governments, State and National, of at least five billion dollars. But
 the East was the mistress of the United States, and the social and
 economic ideals of that section were to be stamped permanently upon
 the country.”[346]

The war having ended in a complete conquest of the South and a
sentimental control of the vigorous West, expanded by the East as it
exploited the broken South; through the destruction of the codes and
the imposition of Congressional Reconstruction, the whites of the South
were welded into a new mass, cruder and tougher and not unnaturally
quite inimical to the Negro who had been made to rule over them, until
by revolutionary methods they had overthrown such. That they, the
Negroes, and the Western whites had all been subjected to the control
of the East as thoroughly as economic laws could subject them to it,
was not for decades appreciated in the South or West.

Had Lincoln not been assassinated and had he remained true to his
Western ideals, he would have been broken on the wheel of capitalism
as relentlessly as was his great Southern successor, who struck down
Germany in her hour of triumph. But Lincoln was spared that test
and died without realizing the entire measure of his service to the
Union and the whites who inhabited it; for to him the Negroes were a
negligible quantity, despite all the phrases with which he utilized
them, in his purpose of preserving the Union. Indeed it was not until
the fountains of the great deep were broken in the World War, that the
inevitable consequences of emancipation forced themselves upon public
opinion, and, in this connection, a small episode, of the above related
meeting of the American Historical Association in 1909, throws some
light upon the state of mind of the East at that date.

At the same meeting in which Dr. DuBois read his bold, elaborate and
interesting defense of Congressional Reconstruction, the author of
this study submitted, on request, a paper on the Negro question, in
accordance with the limitations, which, while accepted and edited for
publication by the Board, was not permitted publication in the Report
of the Historical Association, Mr. Charles D. Walcott having the power
to exclude it from such, and using the power. That the skeleton piece
of 1750 words was to some slight degree critical of the East is not to
be denied; but if the Eastern scholars rose above their prejudices when
presented with truth why could not the official? The gist of the little
paper when printed does not appear very inflammatory.

 “Says a distinguished Northern writer—‘The North is learning every day
 by valuable experiences that there are vast differences in political
 capacity between the races.’ Certainly nothing has afforded such
 an opportunity for the North to acquire these valuable experiences
 day by day, as the diffusion of the Negroes throughout the Union.
 Meanwhile as the masses in the South are reduced the Negroes will
 not constitute, to the degree they now do, the criminal class; their
 good qualities must become more noticeable and their bad ones excite
 less that intense or contemptuous regard, which has, in the minds of
 many Southern men, made Negro and criminal almost synonymous terms.
 The war made the Negro question a national question, and it is too
 late to say—‘the man of the South must be trusted to work out this
 (the evolution of the Negro race to higher conditions) in his own
 good time’ and that ‘he is charged with the burden and must bear
 it.’ That is a sectional attitude just to neither the Negro nor the
 white man of the South. In time and with greatly reduced numbers of
 the Negroes about him, the Southern white man may change the view,
 which inheritance of ideas almost forces him to hold, viz., that the
 Negro is essentially servile; but that is his sentiment today; and
 while, therefore, he may be best fitted to rule him as such, he is not
 constituted to assist him in the evolution to a higher condition. As
 they spread out, the Negroes must come more and more in contact with
 all grades of our civilization and from such draw the lessons best
 adapted to their own development. The sentiment therefore, which would
 deny them this; which would seek to confine the masses to the South,
 deciding for them that it is their natural home and having but little
 sympathy for them beyond the pale, is in my opinion, the greatest
 obstacle to their advancement and, to some degree, a cause of moral
 deterioration of the higher race.”[347]

But while Dr. DuBois and the author of this study, in response to the
invitation of Dr. Hart, before the historians of the United States
were discussing, each in his own way, a subject they thought of some
importance, it is of interest to consider what was occupying the mind
of the wisest and most neglected Negro in the United States, at the
same time. About the same date William Hannibal Thomas wrote to the
author of this study:

 “It has long been my dream to see all the railroads under one
 management. Therefore had I the influence and cooperation of others,
 I would procure a charter from the Congress of the United States
 creating a National Railway Company capitalized at fifteen billion of
 dollars and empowered to issue bonds for a like amount. Five great
 subdivisions would be created. All south of the Potomac river and east
 of the Mississippi would constitute the Southern division. New England
 the Eastern division. New York and the states north and east of the
 Mississippi, would form the central division. Westward of that great
 river there would be a northern and southern Pacific division. Such
 in brief is the scheme I have in mind and, as an economical factor
 in National uplift, I know of but one other thing that would surpass
 it.”[348]

We might measure the scope of this Negro’s dream in the autumn of 1909,
by the following news item of April 17, 1923, which apparently was only
another dream:

 “Legislation to make affective the plans being worked out by the
 interstate commerce commission for consolidation and regional
 supervision of the railroad systems of the country will be undertaken
 in the next Congress, Chairman Cummins of the Senate Interstate
 Commerce Committee said today, after a discussion of the railroad
 problem with President Harding—‘I think consolidation for the railway
 system as initiated in the transportation act is the only means of
 gaining the efficiency that the country requires of the railroads,’
 said Senator Cummins. Moreover it seems to me to be the only method of
 bringing down freight rates on commodities on which the rate must be
 lowered.”[349]

Whatever difference of opinion may exist amongst railway experts as
to the merits of the legislation concerning railroads which the Iowa
senator has made his name synonymous with, few doubt his knowledge. Yet
he would seem to be just about fourteen years behind the neglected Ohio
Negro, whose opportunities were restricted to two sessions of the South
Carolina legislature in Reconstruction days. Is there anything that has
ever been resolved with regard to railroads better calculated to serve
the general public, than that introduced by Thomas, when opposing the
most brilliant of the Carpet Baggers, Daniel H. Chamberlain, in 1874?—

 “VIII. We hold that all franchises granted by the State should be
 subservient to the public good; that charges for travel and freight
 should be equitable and uniform and no unjust discrimination be made
 between through and local travel.”[350]

Both conventions had to subscribe to that; but if it represented the
views of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the Reformers under Thomas and others
must be credited with some influence in turning him from his earlier
views on railroads, when he was the legal guardian of the State.

Observe him, fresh from the East.

  “Office of the Attorney General,
  Columbia, S. C. January 5, 1870.

 My dear Kimpton: Parker arrived last evening and spoke of the G. & C.
 matter, etc. I told him I had just written you fully on that matter
 and also about the old Bk. bills. Do you understand fully the plan of
 the G. & C. enterprise? It is proposed to buy $350,000 worth of the G.
 & C. Stock. This with $433,000 of stock held by the State, will give
 entire control to us. The Laurens branch will be sold in February by
 decree of court and will cost not more than $50,000 and probably not
 more than $40,000. The Spartanburg and Union can also be got without
 difficulty. We shall then have in G. & C. 168 miles, in Laurens, 31,
 and in S. & U. 70 miles—in all 269 miles—equipped and running—put a
 first mortgage of $20,000 a mile—sell the bonds at $85 or $90, and the
 balance, after paying all outlays for cost and repairs, is immense,
 over $2,000,000. There is a mint of money in this or I am a fool.
 Then we will soon compel the S. C. R. R. to fall into our hands and
 complete the connection to Asheville, N. C. There is an infinite verge
 of expansion of power before us. Write me fully and tell me every
 thing you want done. My last letter was very full. Harrison shall
 be attended to at once. I don’t think Neagle will make any trouble.
 Parker hates Neagle, and magnifies his intentions.

  Yours truly,
  D. H. Chamberlain”[351]

What a terrible indictment of the Negro intelligentsia is their utter
neglect of William Hannibal Thomas, the great Negro who could think of
something more than himself and his race, who wished to serve humanity
at large.


FOOTNOTES:

[324] DuBois, Reconstruction and Its Benefits Am. Hist. Rev. Vol. IV,
p. 781.

[325] Compendium Ninth Census U. S. p. 14.

[326] DuBois, Reconstruction and Its Benefits Am. Hist. Rev. Vol. IV,
p. 784.

[327] Ibid.

[328] Ibid.

[329] Statutes S. C. Vol. XIII, p. 279.

[330] Ibid. p. 298.

[331] Ibid.

[332] Ibid.

[333] Ibid. p. 296.

[334] Ibid. p. 297.

[335] Ibid. p. 277.

[336] Ibid. p. 299.

[337] Ibid.

[338] DuBois, Reconstruction and Its Benefits Am. Hist. Rev. Vol. XIV.
p. 782.

[339] Ibid. p. 790.

[340] Ibid.

[341] Ibid.

[342] Ibid. p. 791.

[343] Ibid. p. 793.

[344] Ibid. p. 799.

[345] Thomas, The American Negro, p. 307.

[346] Dodd, Expansion and Conflict p. 328.

[347] Paper, American Hist. Asso. 1909.

[348] Thomas, Letter to author, November 20, 1909.

[349] _Charleston Evening Post_, April 17, 1923.

[350] _News and Courier_, October 5, 1874.

[351] Allen, Gov. Chamberlain’s Administration, p. 143.




CHAPTER XIV


With the year 1914, the world entered a new era of thought, for the
effect upon civilization of that great convulsion which afflicted the
world in 1914 was felt far beyond the arenas upon which the World War
was fought. The conflict was on too gigantic a scale for it to be
grasped during its waging. It tested civilization to a supreme degree.
Loosely knit bonds, that in all reason should have parted under the
immense strain to which they were submitted, held all the tighter under
the tugs to which they were subjected. That portion of humanity which
had least to give, gave with a fullness beyond the imagination of man.
Nothing in all time has ever equalled the volunteer movement of the men
of Britain and her dominion states. Conscription might have produced a
more efficient army and less weakened the State; but the great soldier
and greater man, who in the main fashioned the armies of Britain to
the admiration of his country’s foes, knew that, in that great hour,
nothing could equal the moral effect of that wonderful volunteer
movement. Democracy was put to the test and rang absolutely true.

So much happened before the United States flung her immense force
into the scale, that an infinitude of fact has passed from the memory
of men. Never in the history of the world was it more thoroughly
demonstrated, that “Order is (not) heaven’s first law.” Democracy moved
up to the sacrifice unfalteringly. Autocracy broke under the strain
and, in his own appointed time and in spite of all that man proposed,
God disposed of the event, in a way no one could have dreamed of. But
before the great Republic of the West intervened, in many ways the
United States was affected, and in none more profoundly than by the
migration of the Negroes from the South and their diffusion throughout
the country. The war between the States and emancipation had made this
diffusion only a question of time and it had been progressing with a
quickened and then a retarded flow, during the decades previous to
the Great War; but the war’s great check on immigration from Europe
speeded up the movement. Lecturing at the University of Chicago in
June, 1916, the author of this study was struck with the nature of the
reception accorded the subject: “The Readjustment of the Negro to the
Social System of the Sixties,” in which the necessity for diffusion was
stressed.

Active from 1890 to 1900, later, the standard of living of the Northern
Negro had risen, and just as capital in the North and West had forced
out the English, German and Irish workmen and replaced them with
cheaper and inferior people; so too, the Northern Negro could not live
as cheaply as the Slav, Greek, Italian and Slovene.[352] These in their
turn, however, the World War had been sweeping away, since the middle
of 1914; and, while the sentimental regard for the Negro’s advancement,
which had been very broad and active a generation earlier, had
gradually become restricted to assisting in fitting him for a residence
in “his natural home, the South,” the need for the brawn and sinew
which he could supply, being felt in the North and West, in obedience
to its demand, the Negro, for a consideration, was moving out of “his
natural home”; for the philanthropy of the North, the greatest in the
world, as it draws its supplies from, is to some degree, subservient
to, the commercialism of its section.

Almost contemporaneously with the lectures in the great Western city,
which is destined to be the center of Northern Negro opinion, from the
metropolis of the Union came an utterance of immense importance from
the most aggressive, intelligent and humane publication, spreading out
its influence from the center of American and world finance.

As viewed by The New Republic, the situation in the summer of 1916 was
thus stated:

 “To the Northern Negro the war in Europe has been of immense and
 unexpected advantage. It has shut out the immigrant who is the Negro’s
 most dangerous competitor, has doubled the demand for the Negro’s
 labor, raised his wages, and given chances to him, which in the
 ordinary course would have gone to white men. If immigration still
 lags after the war or is held down by law, the Negro will secure the
 great opportunity for which he has been waiting these fifty years....
 In Southern cities, Atlanta, Memphis, Birmingham, Richmond, Nashville,
 Savannah, Charleston, Mobile, Negroes constitute one-third to one-half
 the population and more than that proportion of the wage earners and
 are given a chance to earn their living, because, without them, the
 work of these cities could not be done. In the city of Philadelphia,
 on the other hand, Negroes form only 5½ per cent of the population,
 in Chicago only 2 per cent, in New York a little less than 2 per
 cent.... If white men will not work with them, if the employer is
 forced to choose between a large supply of white labor and a small
 supply of Negro labor, he will choose the former.... The Negro gets
 a chance to work only when there is no one else.... The wronged are
 always wrong and so we blame the Negro. If we are fair, however, we
 must place the responsibility of a social effect for those responsible
 for the cause. If the Northern Negroes have a higher death rate and
 breed a larger proportion of criminals and prostitutes than do the
 whites, it is in large part our own fault. We cannot understand the
 problems of the Negro in the North unless we constantly bear in mind
 the fact of industrial opportunity. The Northern Negro has the right
 to vote, the right and duty to send his children to school, and
 technically, at least, many civil and political rights. We do not
 put him into Jim Crow cars or hold him in prison camps for private
 exploitation. Nevertheless, the pressure upon him is almost as
 painful, though not nearly so brutal or debasing, as that upon the
 Southern Negro. The Northern Negro is urged to rise but held down
 hard.... Immigration after the war seems likely to be kept down at
 a low level during several years or possibly decades.... It is the
 Negro’s chance, the first extensive widening of his industrial field
 since emancipation.”[353]

The fact that this very able statement is not entirely exact in all
its details takes very little from the value of the presentation of
it. As has been disclosed by Mr. Warne, in his, “Immigrant Invasion,”
the Negro had quite a chance until the decade 1900-1910. That he
did not improve it as fully as he might have done was due; first,
to his ignorance; second, to his retention for quite a while of
servile instincts; third, to the determination, on the part of a very
considerable and influential portion of the Northern and Western
public, that the Negro must be kept out of the North and West; and
of the controlling portion of the Southern public, assisted by the
Republican Supreme Court of the United States, that he should be kept,
as near to the condition of a serf of the soil in the South, as he
could be by those so restraining him, keeping themselves, meanwhile,
on the windy side of the law; fourth, to an active, continuous, well
financed propaganda, led by the most influential member of the race,
that he should cling to the South.

Against such forces what could be affected by the few Southern white
men, Carlyle McKinley, Wade Hampton, and M. C. Butler, as early as
1889, preaching “Diffusion”?

North and South, in the main for purely selfish reasons, the force of
the country was against diffusion of the Negro and for banking him
in the South, where he had been so long a slave. For such a paper,
therefore, as _The New Republic_, to advocate diffusion was a matter of
the very first importance.

Continuing the discussion in its issue of July 1, 1916. _The New
Republic_ declared:

 “For the nation as a whole, such a gradual dissemination of the Negro
 among all the States would ultimately be of real advantage. If at the
 end of half a century, only 50 per cent or 60 per cent instead of 89
 per cent of the Negroes were congregated in the Southern States, it
 would end the fear of race domination, and take from the South many
 of its peculiar characteristics, which today hamper development. To
 the Negro it would be of even more obvious benefit.... For if the
 Southern Negro finding political and social conditions intolerable,
 were to migrate to the North, he would have in his hand a weapon as
 effective, as any he could find, in the ballot box.... Against the
 opposition of the preponderant white population, the Southern Negro
 has few defenses. He has no vote, he has no wealth; and as for the
 protection of the law, that is a sword held by the white man with the
 edge towards the Negro. He cannot better his condition by political
 action or armed revolt. His one defense is to move away.”[354]

Weighing duly what is urged above, without necessarily accepting all
of it as accurate, is it not apparent, that, for a Southern white man
to argue that the Negroes should remain in the South, in the masses
in which they now exist there, is an indication that he refuses to
consider anything as beneficial, which affects industrial conditions
he has become accustomed to? For the Negro so to think is simply the
survival of the servile instinct, which the bulk of the Southern whites
claim is latent in all Negroes.

To stress the matter a little further, the view of a Southern and a
Northern Negro will be submitted and contrasted.

The first is the view of a colored man, Rev. Richard Carroll, who, in
1890, had attracted the attention of George William Curtis, as has been
before mentioned, by his bold and original utterance, that Tillman had
made the whites as well as the Negroes readers and thinkers. Some eight
years later this colored man had served as the chaplain of a colored
regiment in Cuba. Later he had occupied himself with a colored school
near Columbia, South Carolina, and, to some extent, had become, to the
press of the State of South Carolina, the type of the good Negro, who
agrees with the best of the whites. That is the distinct ear mark of
the “Good Negro.”

Describing the departure of the Negroes from South Carolina in 1916, he
states that:

 “Hon. H. C. Tillman, son of Senator B. R. Tillman, told me that in the
 crowd were one or two of the farm hands that had signed contracts to
 work next year, but that he would not interfere with them.”

Next he describes the tearful, melodramatic appeal of a Georgia divine,
entreating the Negroes not to leave the South:

 “We have not treated you right; we are going to do better. Let us,
 white and colored unite to solve the race question on Southern soil.
 We are in debt to you colored people. First of all we owe you the
 Gospel; then we owe you protection before the law. There will be no
 more outrages when we take up this problem, as we should, and solve it
 by the Gospel.”

Having shown the patriotic unselfishness of Captain Tillman and quoted
the wail of the Georgia divine, the colored educator proceeds to state
his own view:

 “This is the country for the black man; the white people of the South
 should offer the proper inducements and protection before the law to
 keep the colored people in the Southland.... It may be as many of our
 colored people say: ‘God is in this movement.’ But I believe that if
 the colored people of the South had worked together for the last fifty
 years for the good of each race and at the same time each race in its
 place, we would have had better conditions; in the South—no lynchings,
 no cause for lynchings. If the best people in the South had kept it
 in the hands of the Gen. Wade Hampton type, this would have been the
 greatest country on earth.”

Just about fifty years before Carroll’s utterance, people in the
South, to some degree answering to Carroll’s description of the
Hampton type, framed the Black Codes, as they thought, “for the good
of each race, and at the same time each race in its place.” But, after
Reconstruction, Wade Hampton thought diffusion of the Negro was the
only remedy.

After detailing cases, where he claimed to know that Negro men of
property had been ordered out of the State simply because they owned
property and were prosperous, Carroll states that when they came to him
for advice, he advised them to—

 “try to get to some other white men in the county or community, as
 there are plenty of white men in South Carolina, who would give
 justice and protection.”[355]

The Black Codes made this obligatory on all masters for their servants.
The framers of the codes were raised in the school of politics which
Rhett, in 1850, announced the basic principle of, as follows:

 “Where there is but one race in a community there may be political
 equality in rights—but this cannot give equality in mind, character
 and condition. Servitude still prevails in one form or another, from
 a necessity as stern as the laws. But when the races are different
 and one race is inferior to the other, the inferior race must be
 exterminated or fall into such a state of subjection as to present
 motives for their preservation to the stronger race.”[356]

Residence in the South, a considerable time after maturity, had
therefore apparently lessened the independence of this colored man. He
had come, not unnaturally, to prefer security to independence.

But, in the same year and about the same time, there appeared in the
same paper a temperately worded article from the pen of another Negro,
also a minister, R. R. Wright, Jr., residing in Philadelphia, who had
been employed at various times by the United States Bureau of Labor and
the University of Pennsylvania.

He had also, at an earlier date, published an essay on the Negro
Problem, which treats the subject as a scientific investigation, in
which all temper and feeling is out of place. With regard to the
movement of the Negroes he declared there had been at least four
different migrations of the Negroes from the South to the North
since the war between the States, and estimating in 1916 that there
were then, in that section, usually called the North but embracing a
considerable portion of the West, he thought, of the 1,600,000 Negroes
there, three fourths had been born in the South. With regard to the
number of Negroes in the North at that date this estimate was above
what the Census of 1920 disclosed; for by it, the date 1910, there were
only 1,059,000 Negroes in the North and West and therefore, even if
they had increased by 1916 to 1,600,000, three fourths of these could
not have been from the South, even if the total addition of 541,000 had
come from that section, as of the 1,059,000 in 1910, only forty per
cent were from the South;[357] but whether 40%, 50% or 75% were from
the South, Wright believed 80% of those who had moved up would stay,
because he was confident, the most efficient could compete with the
Slavs and Italians in rough work. Indeed he claimed it was no uncommon
thing to see a Negro foreman over groups of Italians in Pennsylvania.
Having seen the same thing practically as to Negroes and Spaniards,
during the World War the writer can believe this. Higher wages and
better educational facilities also Wright claimed would draw the Negro,
North and West, and finally he cited what is in his opinion the most
powerful inducement, for the Negro to move in increasing numbers from
the South to the North:

 “The opportunity to vote will also tend to hold them. Politicians are
 encouraging Negroes to remain; as they are very generally Republican.
 Northern Negroes are encouraging them to stay because it gives them
 more power; and after the Negro casts his vote and takes part in
 political meetings, he is just like the naturalized foreigner—he
 likes it and stays. Of course the white people rule, because superior
 intelligence and wealth always rule. But the black man enjoys being
 a part of the Government and being called upon every year to have
 his “say”.... While there is no more social equality in the North
 than there is in the South, and practically no desire for the same,
 the longer the Negro lives there, the opportunities to enjoy himself
 according to his means appeal to him. He earns more money, can live
 in a better house, buy better clothes, develops more accomplishments,
 has more leisure and has more protection in his enjoyment. Personally,
 I think it is good both for the Negroes and for the whites that a
 million or two million Negroes leave the South. It will make room for
 a large number of foreigners to come to the South and will tend to
 divorce the South’s labor problem more widely from its race problem,
 and will give it a new perspective. It will also rob the South of
 the fear of ‘Negro domination’ and will give it a chance to give a
 better expression to our democratic principles. On the other hand the
 scattering the Negroes throughout the country will bring them in touch
 with the forces of organized labor in a way to bring them better
 protection, while it will also acquaint the North with the Negro in
 such a way as to give it a more intelligent grasp of our general
 problem of racial relations.”[358]

Meanwhile with views for and views against, shouted to them, from all
sides, the Negroes moved up from the South to the North and West and to
the great centers of industry, to supply the place of immigrants and
soldiers passed and passing to Europe for the great war.

To the reading Negro, wherever he was, North or South in this year just
before the entrance of the great Republic into the greatest war of all
time, came “The New Negro, His Political and Civil Status and Related
Essays,” by William Pickens, Lit. D. Easily comprehended, popularly
composed, they opened with the usual attack upon the black laws of the
South in the sixties, the author especially singling out the code of
South Carolina for criticism. Of them generally he says:

 “From the standpoint of the Negro’s interests, however, these laws
 were ‘black’, not only in name and aim, but in their very nature.
 Instead of being the property of a personally interested master, the
 Negro was to be converted into the slave of a much less sympathetic
 society in general.”[359]

But strange to say this critic, in 1916, actually proclaims that—

 “One of the greatest handicaps under which the New Negro lives is the
 handicap of the lack of acquaintanceship between him and his white
 neighbor. Under the former order, when practically all Negroes were
 either slaves or servants, every Negro had the acquaintance of some
 white man; as a race he was better known, better understood and was,
 therefore, the object of less suspicion on the part of the white
 community.”[360]

If this was a handicap in 1916, what must it have been in 1865? Forty
one years before this Negro scholar discovered the handicap, the South,
in attempting to readjust itself to the consequences of defeat and
the overthrow of its industrial system, had legislated to preserve
that acquaintanceship by a system of apprenticeship, which if it was
calculated to work out the problem very slowly; yet was calculated
to produce something superior even to the free persons of color that
slavery had evolved, a worthy product which no Negro or Northern
scholar has ever had the patience to think about. Little as the author
of this study knows about the free persons of color whom the South
reared; yet it is not fair to accuse them of what Pickens is absolutely
justified in stating with regard to the mass of Southern colored
citizens who were the product of Congressional Reconstruction. Pickens
indeed is refreshingly frank in this respect and so much so that the
Negroes will avoid his book. It will not be found advertised in any
list of the National Association for the Advancement of the Colored
Race. He is dangerously near William Hannibal Thomas in the following:

 “Till this day the Negro is seldom frank to the white man in America.
 He says what he does not mean; he means what he does not say. I
 have heard Negro speakers address mixed audiences of white and
 colored persons and both white and black go away rejoicing, each
 side thinking that the speaker had spoken their opinions, altho the
 opinions of the blacks were very different from those of the whites,
 even contradictory. This is one reason for the great misconception in
 the white race respecting the desires, ambitions and sentiments of the
 black.”[361]

But in the year which followed that in which Pickens’s book was
published the United States entered the World War.

Before discussing the effect of that great adventure upon the Negro
minority of one-tenth of the population of the United States, the force
which swung the whole should have some slight consideration, and from
the pen of a political opponent, the editor of the greatest Republican
paper of the West this is pictured as follows:

 “Our chief admiration for Mr. Wilson is for the manner in which he
 drove the war activities once we were committed. That determination
 was evolved from his character. He used conscription. He furnished
 the Allies with what they needed—men, money and materials in the
 amounts needed. Weakness at this time might have ruined us. A man less
 determined to have his own way, less impervious to what was said of
 him, might have flinched at conscripting soldiers. He might have tried
 to fight the war with volunteers. He might even have tried to fight
 it with money and materials. He might have tried to spare the nation
 human sacrifices or to limit the expenditure of human life. Then we
 should have entered a losing war and have been among the losers, just
 in time to be in the wreckage. Conscription was his big decision and
 whether he realized it or not was his most dangerous one. Hughes might
 have had serious draft riots. From Wilson the people took the draft
 with hardly a murmur, and the war was won right then. The President
 did not allow the people to draw back from a drop in the cup. He
 took their money. He spent it without a thought for the waste of it.
 There had to be waste. He put the United States behind the Allies with
 a promise of the last man and the last dollar. It required courage,
 intelligence and character; and all the ruggedness and wilfulness of
 Mr. Wilson’s temperament served the country as it needed to be served.
 Those were the high moments of his career. He sent 2,000,000 men to
 France before the astonished Germans thought that it was possible
 to do so. He had 2,000,000 in America training camps and more were
 being drafted. Then also from the White House came the thunders of
 rhetoric which stupefied the German people behind their armies and
 disintegrated them in the rear of their fighting forces. As American
 divisions put the pressure on German divisions, Mr. Wilson’s words
 destroyed the morale of the German people who had been steadfast; and
 the war was won.”[362]

But he did more, a Southerner, conscious of the deep prejudices of
his own section and against the protests of many State officials,
he determined that a certain proportion of colored men should have
training as officers; nor did he permit this military training to be
stopped even after the Houston riot, when for the second time Negro
soldiery shot up a Southern city. Those who were guilty were court
martialed promptly; but to the surprise of not a few of the Negro
aspirants for office, the training of Negro officers proceeded. Again
not quoting from a friend; but taking a Negro’s statement we note:

 “As many as 1200 men became commissioned officers ... Negro nurses
 were authorized by the War Department for service in base hospitals at
 six army camps—Funston, Sherman, Zachary Taylor and Dodge, and women
 served as canteen workers in France and in charge of hostess houses
 in the United States. Sixty Negro men served as chaplains, 350 as
 Y. M. C. A. secretaries and others in special capacities.... In the
 whole matter of the War the depressing incident was the Court Martial
 of sixty-three members of the Twenty Fourth Infantry, U. S. A. on
 trial for rioting and the murder of seventeen people at Houston Texas,
 August 23rd, 1917. As a result of it thirteen of the defendants were
 hanged, December 11th, forty-nine sentences to imprisonment for life,
 four for imprisonment for shorter terms and four were acquitted.”[363]

President Wilson’s action in this matter was a vindication of President
Roosevelt’s action in the previous riot at Brownsville and a stern
condemnation of the sentimentalists, white and black whose strictures
upon Roosevelt had led the Negro soldiery to harbor the amazing idea,
that troops of any color could take the law into their own hands and
make Zaberns in America, on a scale beyond the wildest imaginations of
any War Lord’s minions, in Europe.


FOOTNOTES:

[352] Warne, Immigrant Invasion, p. 174.

[353] The New Republic, June 24, 1916.

[354] Ibid. July 1, 1916.

[355] _News and Courier_, December 17, 1916.

[356] Rhett’s Oration on Calhoun, Pamphlets Vol. 8 p. 151 Johnston
C.L.S.

[357] Bureau U. S. Census 1910 Bulletin 129, p. 64.

[358] R. R. Wright Jr. Letter _News and Courier_, November 6, 1916.

[359] Pickens, The New Negro, p. 18.

[360] Ibid. p. 228.

[361] Ibid. p. 37.

[362] _Chicago Tribune._

[363] Brawley, Short History of American Negro, p. 357.




CHAPTER XV


In the year immediately following the end of the great World War armed
clashes between whites and Negroes in the United States occurred in
the great cities of the North and West, Washington, Chicago and Omaha
and also in the State of Arkansas. These race riots drew comment from
whites and Negroes. Prior to these riots in the time of peace, there
had been others during the World War at Chester and Philadelphia,
in the State of Pennsylvania and one in Illinois at East St. Louis.
Both Dr. DuBois, the president of “The National Association for the
Advancement of the Colored People,” and the colored minister Wright,
whose article on Negro migration has been alluded to, gave advice. It
is interesting to compare their utterances. The communication of the
minister is first cited.

  “To my dear Brethren and Friends:

 Permit me to say this word to you in this time of most serious
 anxiety. You have read of the riots in St. Louis, Philadelphia, and
 Chester, Pennsylvania during the Great World War and in Washington
 and Chicago since the close. When the facts have been finally sifted,
 they have always shown that the colored people did not start these
 riots. They were started by whites in every instance. If there are
 to be riots in the future I want to say to my people let it be as it
 has been in the past, that you shall not be the instigators of them.
 It is to the everlasting disgrace of these Northern cities as it has
 been of certain Southern cities, that these riots have been started
 by whites, and that white policemen who should be the first to uphold
 the law have, in nearly every instance assisted the mobs. Now is the
 time for all of us to keep our wits: to do nothing wrong, which may be
 any excuse for riot. Let men and women go about their work quietly,
 attending to their business. Keep away from saloons and places where
 there is gambling. More trouble starts in these places than anywhere
 else. Avoid arguments. Make no boasts. Make no threats. Attack no man
 nor woman without due provocation, and under no circumstances hurt
 a child. Don’t tell anybody what the Negroes are going to do to the
 whites. For we do not want war; we want peace. Our safety is in peace.
 Don’t loaf in the streets; do not needlessly encounter gangs of white
 boys. A gang of boys from 15 to 20 years is generally irresponsible. A
 gang of white toughs will delight to ‘jump’ a lone Negro, especially
 if they number eight or a dozen and believe the Negro is unarmed;
 and it is foolish to give them the chance. In trading as nearly as
 possible get the right change before paying your bill; know what you
 want, where you can trade with your own people, where you are not
 liable to get into a dispute. Don’t go to white theatres, white ice
 cream places, white banks or white stores, where you can find colored
 to serve you just as well. In other words don’t spend your hard
 earned money where you are in danger of being beaten up. Don’t carry
 concealed weapons—its against the law. Now I am not urging cowardice.
 I am urging common sense. I am urging law and order. Protect your
 home, protect your wife and children, with your life, if necessary. If
 a man crosses your threshold after you or your family, the law allows
 you to protect your home even if you have to kill the intruder. Obey
 the law but do not go hunting for trouble. Avoid it. Do not be afraid
 or lose heart because of these riots. They are merely symptoms of the
 protest of your entrance into a higher sphere of American citizenship.
 They are the dark hours before morning which have always come just
 before the burst of a new civic light. Some people see this light
 and they provoke these riots endeavoring to stop it from coming. But
 God is working. Things will be better for the Negro. We want full
 citizenship ballot, equal school facilities and everything else. We
 fought for them. We will have them; we must not yield. The greater
 part of the best thinking white people, North and South know we are
 entitled to all we ask. They know we will get it. In their hearts
 they are for us though they may fear the lower elements who are trying
 to stir up trouble to keep us from getting our rights. But they will
 fail just as they failed to keep us from our freedom. God is with us.
 They cannot defeat God. So I say to you stand aside, stand prepared,
 provoke no riot; just let God do his work. He may permit a few riots
 just to force the Negroes closer together. He lets the hoodlums kill a
 few in order to teach the many that WE MUST GET TOGETHER. But he does
 not mean that we shall be defeated—if we trust him. Let us learn the
 lesson He is teaching us. Remember a riot may break out in any place.
 Let pastors caution peace, prayer and preparedness. Let us provoke
 no trouble. Let us urge our congregations to keep level heads and do
 nothing that is unlawful.

  Yours in Christian bonds,
  R. R. Wright, Jr.
  Editor of the Christian Recorder.”[364]

The appeal of DuBois is more dramatic:

 “Brothers we are on the Great Deep. We have cast off on the vast
 voyage which will lead to Freedom or Death. For three centuries we
 have suffered and cowered. No race ever gave Passive Resistance and
 Submission to Evil longer, more piteous trial. Today we raise the
 terrible weapon of Self Defense. When the murderer comes he shall
 no longer strike us in the back. When the armed lynchers gather, we
 too must gather armed. When the mob moves we propose to meet it with
 bricks and clubs and guns. But we must tread here with solemn caution.
 We must never let justifiable self defense against individuals become
 blind and lawless offense against all white folk. We must not seek
 reform by violence. We must not seek vengeance. Vengeance is Mine
 saith the Lord; or to put it otherwise—only infinite Justice and
 Knowledge can assign blame in this poor world and we ourselves are
 sinful men, struggling desperately with our own crime and ignorance.
 We must defend ourselves, our homes, our wives and children against
 the lawless without stint or hesitation; but we must carefully and
 scrupulously avoid on our own part bitter and unjustifiable aggression
 against anybody. The line is difficult to draw. In the South the
 Police and Public Opinion back the mob and the least resistance on
 the part of the innocent black victim is nearly always construed as
 a lawless attack on society and government. In the North the Police
 and the Public will dodge and falter, but in the end they will back
 the Right when the truth is made clear to them. But whether the
 line between just resistance and angry retaliation is hard or easy,
 we must draw it carefully, not in wild resentment, but in grim and
 sober consideration; and when back of the impregnable fortress of the
 Divine Right of Self Defense, which is sanctioned by every law of God
 and man, in every land, civilized or uncivilized, we must take our
 unfaltering stand. Honor, endless and undying Honor, to every man,
 black or white, who in Houston, East St. Louis, Washington and Chicago
 gave his life for Civilization and Order. If the United States is to
 be a Land of Law, we would live humbly and peaceably in it—working,
 singing, learning and dreaming to make it and ourselves nobler and
 better; if it is to be a Land of Mobs and Lynchers, we might as well
 die today as tomorrow.

    ‘And how can a man die better
        Than facing fearful odds
    For the ashes of his fathers
        And the temples of his Gods?’
               The Crisis (New York) September.”[365]

In a consideration of these two utterances, if it be conceded that in
point of literary excellence, DuBois’s appeal is superior, yet that
does not establish that in his call he better plays the part of leader
than the Negro minister, first quoted, whose exhortation to his race,
unlike that of DuBois, is in no way overstrained, nor pitched too high
for the humblest, if possessed of rudimentary intelligence, to grasp.
The detailed instructions in Wright’s publication, simple as they are,
contain wisdom, the wisdom which crieth out in the streets from of old;
while if the comparison instituted, by DuBois between the Northern
and the Southern whites, in respect to the police and public opinion
in the two sections, is true, it is passing strange, that unlike the
Negro minister, he is not found advising the migration from the worse
to the better section, as far as the needs of his race are concerned.
If in the North, even if justice moves limpingly as he describes; yet
according to him justice does move. And for the poor and oppressed what
gain can out-weigh justice? But there is a graver comparison to be
instituted between these calls. DuBois in his publication exclaims:

 “Honor, endless and undying Honor, to every man, black or white who
 in Houston, East St. Louis, Washington and Chicago gave his life for
 Civilization and Order.”

Now whatever wrongs or supposed wrongs the Negro soldiery suffered
in Houston, can it be reasonably contended that they, armed by the
Federal Government and enlisting to be under its orders, in breaking
away from the control of their superior officers and with weapons put
in their hands for other purposes, in any way assisted civilization
and order by precipitating themselves upon the white population in an
attempt to shoot up the city? If he does so claim then he is worse
than the Negro soldiery who so acted, or those Negroes and whites,
no matter who they were, who criticised Roosevelt’s action in the
Brownsville matter. No matter to what lofty station Roosevelt’s critics
may have been advanced; no matter what service they may claim to have
rendered peace and civilization, their weakness in that first instance
induced the graver breach, for which, under President Wilson, as
commander-in-chief, the Negro soldiery were courtmartialed and punished
for their excesses at Houston. Yet while the perusal of DuBois’s call,
as above, does not convey a positive stand for or against the Negro
soldiery and is open to the criticism which appears in Pickens’s book:

 “Till this day the Negro is seldom frank to the white man. He says
 what he does not mean; he means what he does not say,”—

apparently his view changed. As editor of The Crisis, Dr. DuBois upon
the occasion of the Chicago riots as above noted honored every man,
black or white, who, in either Houston or Chicago, gave his life for
civilization and order; later he expressed the following, which is
nothing more nor less than a justification of the behavior of the Negro
soldiery at Houston:

 “Six years ago December 11, at 7:17 in the morning, thirteen American
 Negro soldiers were murdered on the scaffold by the American
 government to satisfy the blood-lust of Texas, on account of the
 Houston riot.”[366]

Now, how does this exhibit this extremely gifted man, as a leader of
his race? In the roar and blaze of the Chicago riot, in 1919 he was
for “Honor, endless and undying Honor to every man black or white in
Houston ... who gave his life for civilization and order”; but by the
end of 1920, the executed Negro soldiers had become martyrs, murdered
by the government.

But in justice to this most excitable man, it must be admitted that
there can be found whites of cultivation and intellect just as wild.
Take the case of Dr. H. J. Seligman.

With all the insufferable conceit of a certain class of white, he
appropriates the work of Negroes, (easily recognized by those who have
heard their most intelligent speakers), denatures it of the humor which
makes its appeal and presents it to the public, as his own indictment
of the South. “The Southern dogma colors the rest of the country,” he
says. Yet he admits—“In so far as the South is concerned, conditions
improve as the Negro moves out.” Another writer, Stephen Graham, starts
his book with crediting to the Negro slaves emancipated in 1863 the
“twelve millions out of a total of a hundred millions of all races
blending in America.”[367] As the census postdating his book gives
only 10,389,328 Negroes for 1920, and as in all reason nearly two
millions of these may be argued to be the progeny of the free persons
of color of 1860, the contribution to the race from the class of
colored person invariably ignored by English and Northern writers must
approach almost a third. But that is not sensational. So journeying
through Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana
and Mississippi, visiting Negroes, accepting their hospitality and
practicing social equality, Graham most inconsiderately denounces their
smell and, because he failed to reach and establish any spiritual
touch, in his attempt to address them, stupidly decides there was none
to be attained. Expressing the belief that the Negroes of New York
and Chicago were firmer in flesh and will than those in the South and
yield more hope for the race in the light of the extra prosperity and
happiness of the Northern Negroes, he nevertheless crawls back to the
feet of Northern prejudice with the declaration against the migration
of the Negroes from the South to the North and the consequent even
distribution over the whole of the country, because it would take
“hundreds of years to even them out” and “they would probably crowd
more and more into the large cities and be as much involved in evil
conditions, as they were in the South.” Can it be possible that there
are nothing but evil conditions in the great cities of the North and
West? Is it not the belief of the Northern authorities, that what the
Negro needs is education? What education is equal to residence in these
great pulses of our civilization? Has not Mr. Graham, himself attested
“the extra prosperity and happiness of the Northern Negroes?” Why then
attempt to throw doubts on the benefits to the Negro from diffusion? It
might as well be faced without any more squirming. It is inevitable. By
the law of compensation, that section of our great country, which for
a hundred years or more has represented to the admiring world all the
virtue, intelligence and civilization of the United States, especially
in its treatment of the colored race will have to endeavor to live up
to its reputation. The aspiring Negro is not going to be denied that
contact with the most advanced civilization of this country, which
those who freed him owe to him. If he crowds into the great cities,
it is because there he finds its most advertised display, and so the
most active and energetic push into it with some contempt for their
feeble self elected leaders, who have preached against or kept quiet
concerning it.

For three decades prior to the war between the States, the Southern
States of the Union had made railroad development secondary to
the Negro question. Constituting as they did in area at that time
fully one-half of the States; peopled with 3,575,634 whites and
2,176,127 Negroes, they had been led to base their civilization on
the substratum of an inferior race, putting that wild conception even
above the Federal Union, that great experiment in government, which
they had been most instrumental in framing. After their overthrow,
Reconstruction raised the spectre of the Negro outstripping the
whites in the South and almost assuredly in the lower South. And what
establishes the wonderful clearness of the vision of the Negro, William
Hannibal Thomas, was his ability, two years before the overthrow of
Reconstruction, to see through the mists of 1874, which so completely
shrouded the vision of Judge Albion Tourgee as late as 1888 in his
“Appeal to Caesar.”

For Thomas realized, from the outset, that the Negro majority of South
Carolina could not last.

In the hundred years which have elapsed since 1820, the proportion of
the Negro population to the whites in the United States, as a whole,
has dropped from 19 per cent to 9.9 per cent, the whites rising from
81 per cent to 90.1 per cent. With regard to the Negro population in
the Southern States as compared with the rest of the United States,
the proportion in the South has dropped from 92.5 per cent to 84.2 per
cent, the percentage of the rest of the United States rising from 8
per cent to 15.98 per cent. But while it is treated as a movement of
one hundred years, as far as the South is concerned, on account of the
unknown accretions prior to 1860 through the illicit slave trade and
the magnetic attraction of Reconstruction, it could be more accurately
represented as a movement of forty years.

In the five great States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi
and Louisiana, embracing an area of about 224,960 square miles of
contiguous territory, the white population had risen from 4,112,564
in 1880, to 7,444,218 in 1920; while in the same period the Negro
population had increased from 2,408,654 only to 3,223,791. But what is
even more striking is the fact that in the last decade there has been
an actual decrease of 143,288 in the Negro population of this Southern
area.

At the same time in the five great States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan and Wisconsin the Negro population has risen to 514,589, and
to the East of the great Northwest, in the Middle States and New
England 709,453 were found to be; while West of the Mississippi river,
outside of the old South, into a region, which before the war between
the States was prairie and almost unexplored mountain and desert,
314,879 Negroes have moved. Yet in the South they still constitute 26
per cent of the population to only 3 per cent outside, in the rest of
the Union.

Mr. Graham’s impression, however, that it will “take hundreds of years
to even them out” is a hasty and illconsidered judgment. Louisiana,
which forty years ago had a colored majority of 28,707, had by the
Census of 1920 a white majority of 396,360. Georgia had increased its
white majority from 90,773 in 1880 to 482,749 in 1920; while the great
cotton planting State of Alabama had raised its majority in the same
period from 62,083 to 546,972. Considering what the Census figures
show for Virginia, suffering as no State suffered from the war between
the States, engaged in by her for no purpose of sustaining a black
substratum for her civilization; but for a purpose identical with that
which the civilized world acclaimed for Belgium and supporting the
shock of war with a courage and devotion not surpassed by France in the
Great War, she was shorn of about a third of her area and four-tenths
of her white population, in utter defiance of the Constitution; but,
now with a white majority which has risen from 57.5 per cent to 70.1
per cent, she is in a healthier condition than the portion which was
carved out of her flank. The gain of North Carolina is even greater.
Taking the whole South, we find, that from 1880 to 1920 the white
population has increased from 12,309,087 to 25,016,579; while during
the same period the colored has only risen from 6,013,215 to 8,801,753.
It is true that by the Census of 1920 two Southern States, Mississippi
and South Carolina still each had a colored majority; but one which had
shrunk from 213,227 to only 46,181 in South Carolina and from 170,893
in Mississippi to 81,262; the percentage of whites in South Carolina
being 48.6 per cent and in Mississippi 48.3 per cent.[368]

Until the Census of 1930 is published we shall not know positively;
but in this, the fifth year since the last census, all available
information seems to indicate that in both States the white minority
has been converted into a white majority. By the census of the United
States for 1920 in the 875,670 square miles which constitute the
Southern States there were 25,016,579 whites and 8,801,753 colored
inhabitants; while the remaining 2,150,600 square miles of the Union
held 70,925,032 whites and 1,552,402 Negroes, with 109,966 under
strictly Federal control at Washington. But again, North of the
Northern line of the United States extends a region greater in area
than the United States in which as indicated by the Canadian census
of 1921 there are only 8,750,643 inhabitants. The door of opportunity
therefore still remains open to the Negro in America and his inability
to see this, throughout the fifty eight years of his freedom in which
it has been accessible to him by foot, while handicapped by their
ignorance of our wants, our customs and our language, the impoverished
whites of Europe have crossed the three thousand miles of water which
barred them, offers the most striking proof of the Negro’s lack of
capacity to help himself.

Perhaps, in justice to the Negroes as a whole, it should be noted that
in no race that has ever existed has it been easier to use the supposed
leaders against the true interests of the masses, than is apparent in
the history of the Negroes. Yet even these, as they now clash with
each other, emit some sparks of political intelligence. Meanwhile the
masses are growing more accustomed to judge for themselves. Northern
environment has not been without its effect upon them. They are taking
something from it and they are going to give something to it.

In the Northwest, in all probability, they are in the next decade apt
to gather in such numbers, as to affect both the South and Canada,
although in exactly opposite ways. To a considerable extent what
The New Republic foresaw in 1916 is coming to pass; but in somewhat
quicker movement than that paper anticipated. The last great effort
to induce them to remain in the South their “natural home” has been
made. It has utterly failed. They are steadily moving out and diffusion
is proceeding without any of the ills so continuously alleged as
inseparable with such a movement.

And now to this last effort, the comments upon it and what may be
called the first Negro Crusade, we should pay some attention, and then
close with an allusion to the most helpful discussion ever instituted
concerning the Negro.


FOOTNOTES:

[364] Kerlin, The Voice of the Negro, p. 21.

[365] Ibid. p. 20.

[366] The Crisis, December 1923, p. 59.

[367] Graham, Children of the Slaves, Preface.

[368] U. S. Census Pop. by Color, 1920.




CHAPTER XVI


At Birmingham, Alabama, President Harding spoke on the Negro question,
October 25, 1921. Elected president by the greatest majority which had
ever placed a president in power, his remarks, if not very profoundly
wise, were unquestionably bravely frank. His position was that unless
there should “be recognition of the absolute divergence in things
social and racial,” there might be “occasion for great and permanent
differentiation.” To quote him in such passages as most clearly and
unequivocally expressed his views, he will be found to have said:

 Men of different races may well stand uncompromisingly against any
 suggestion of social equality. Indeed it would be helpful to have
 the word equality eliminated from this consideration, to have it
 accepted on both sides that this is not a question of social equality
 but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal and inescapable
 difference. We shall have made real progress when we develop an
 attitude in the public and community thought of both races which
 recognizes the difference.[369]

To this he added, as if replying to some unexpressed utterance, altho’
he was the sole speaker:

 I would accept that a black man cannot be a white man and that he
 does not need and should not aspire to be as much like a white man as
 possible in order to accomplish the best that is possible for him.[370]

In these two utterances President Harding put himself in accord with
Abraham Lincoln and in opposition to Theodore Roosevelt’s dinner to
Booker Washington, and, from this, he drew near to what is supposed to
be the teaching of Booker Washington:

 “I would say let the black man vote when he is fit to vote.... I have
 no sympathy with the half baked altruism that would overstock us with
 doctors and lawyers of whatever color and leave us in need of people
 fit and willing to do the manual work of a work-a-day world.”[371]

From these generalizations, after quoting from F. D. Lugard a paragraph
which even a Philadelphia lawyer would be puzzled to unravel, in which
it is declared that while there shall be equality in the paths of
knowledge and culture and equal admiration and opportunity, yet each
must pursue his own inherited traditions, and while agreeing to be
spiritually equal diverge physically and materially, the President
reached the piece-de-resistance of his discourse:

 “It is probable that as a nation we have come to the end of the period
 of very rapid increase in our population. Restricted immigration
 will reduce the rate of increase and force us back upon our older
 population to find people to do the simpler physically harder manual
 tasks. This will require some difficult adjustments. In anticipation
 of such a condition the South may well recognize that the North and
 West are likely to continue their drains upon its colored population,
 and that if the South wishes to keep its fields producing and its
 industry still expanding it will have to compete for the services of
 the colored man.”[372]

To this, the most important part of the President’s remarks, while
complimenting the tone and spirit of the whole, the same paper in
which Carlyle McKinley in 1889 sought to reveal to the South its true
policy, thus replied:

 “The South would be glad to see a considerable part of the negro
 population in this section find homes in other sections.”[373]

The comment of that Northern publication which had, as has been shown,
most intelligently discussed the migration of the Negroes from the
South to the North and West in 1916, was to the effect that while the
President’s scheme had much to recommend it as far as the spirit was
concerned, yet—

 “The South knows as President Harding ought to know that you can’t
 draw a sharp line between politics and social life. The offices of a
 State are in most parts of America positions of social leadership.
 With complete political equality the State of Mississippi might
 easily elect a Negro as governor. Would such a result be accepted
 by Mississippi as devoid of social significance? The race problem
 unfortunately is not one that admits of easy general solutions.”[374]

The President’s speech appeared about the time at which Dr. DuBois
returned from the second of the Pan-African congresses in Europe,
which he had been mainly instrumental in convening and at which there
were Negroes and mulattoes from West and South Africa, British Guiana,
Grenada, Jamaica, Nigeria and the Gold Coast; Indians from India and
East Africa; colored men from London; and twenty-five American Negroes.
There were meetings at London, Brussels and Paris.

The London congress over which presided a distinguished English
administrator, later Secretary of State for India, Sir Sidney Olivier,
was mild, the chairman making no attempt to control the findings. But
at Brussels, where—

 “the black Senegalese, Blaise Diagne, French Deputy and High
 Commissioner of African troops—”[375]

presided—

DuBois says—

 “We sensed the fear about us in a war land with nerves still
 taut.”[376]

It seems Oswald Garrison Villard, with that refreshing conceit which
tempts him to discuss any subject whether he knows anything about it
or not, had been ignorantly denouncing conscription, imposed on French
Negroes.

With infinitely superior political acumen the London congress under the
leadership of DuBois, or certainly with his approval, claimed the right
to bear it equally with white Frenchmen, as long as France recognized
racial equality; but when DuBois at Brussels, after a few days of
harmless palaver—

 “rose the last afternoon and read in French and English the
 resolutions of London—”[377]

there was some stir. This is the scene, as depicted by DuBois:

 “Diagne, the Senegales Frenchman who presided was beside himself with
 excitement after the resolutions were read; as under secretary of the
 French government; as ranking Negro of greater France, and perhaps
 as a successful investor in French Colonial enterprises he was
 undoubtedly in a difficult position. Possibly he was bound by actual
 promises to France and Belgium. His French was almost too swift for my
 ears, but his meaning was clear; he felt that the cause of the black
 man had been compromised by black American radicals; he especially
 denounced our demand for ‘the restoration of the ancient common
 ownership of the land in Africa’ as rank communism.”[378]

Dr. DuBois does not explain wherein it was not; but contents himself
with declaring that Diagne used his power as chairman and prevented
a vote, the question being referred to the French congress. Later in
conversation with DuBois, Diagne declared that he had “only sought to
prevent the assassination of a race.”

In his final analysis of the congress at Paris, DuBois says:

 “France recognizes Negro equality, not only in theory but in practice,
 she has for the most part enfranchised her civilized Negro citizens.
 But what she recognizes is the equal right of her citizens black and
 white to exploit by modern industrial methods her laboring classes
 black and white; and the crying danger to black France is that its
 educated and voting leaders will join in the industrial robbery of
 Africa, rather than lead its masses to education and culture.”[379]

DuBois thought Diagne and Candace, while unwavering defenders of
racial opportunity, education for and the franchise for the civilized,
“curiously timid” when the industrial problems of Africa “were”
approached. Well so was the Negro, Martin R. Delany, candidate for
lieutenant governor of South Carolina in 1874. He had had advantages
for studying the African problems which Dr. DuBois had possibly not
enjoyed to the same degree. Delany in his younger days had been an
African explorer and, even if he had not penetrated very deeply into
“The Dark Continent,” had seen the African Negro in his lair. He and
his younger co-laborer for reform in South Carolina, William Hannibal
Thomas, ex-Union soldier from Ohio, as has been narrated, supported
the candidacy of Judge Green for governor of South Carolina, in 1874,
against the brilliant white Carpet-Bagger Daniel H. Chamberlain and
his lieutenant, the even less reputable black Carpet-Bagger, R. B.
Elliott. But while Thomas accepted Chamberlain, in 1876, as a changed
man, with regard to Chamberlain’s accompaniment, Delany, who had been
in South Carolina since 1865, eleven years to Thomas’s three, was still
“curiously timid.”

DuBois later enlarged his experience by a trip to Africa and, before
that, possibly may have been moved by the work of a French Negro
scholar who had made some mark in the literary world and occasioned
some stir in French colonial politics, just after the Pan-African
congress. But upon his return from these in 1921 DuBois at once
addressed himself to the consideration of President Harding’s
Birmingham speech.

With a curious sympathy for the man, Harding, and a display of rank
ingratitude to that white leader who had dared to do more for the
Negro, than Harding thought became a white man, DuBois declared:

 “The President made a braver, clearer utterance than Theodore
 Roosevelt ever dared to make or than William H. Taft or William
 McKinley ever dreamed of....

 Mr. Harding meant that the American Negro must acknowledge that it was
 wrong and a disgrace for Booker T. Washington to dine with President
 Roosevelt.”[380]

Although thus praising the President and with a wholly gratuitous sneer
at the dead Roosevelt who had dared the “disgrace” and suffered for
it, the Doctor asserted Harding’s “braver clearer utterance” was “an
inconceivably dangerous and undemocratic demand,” which he disposes of
with one sweep of his pen, which not only wiped out Harding’s speech;
but also brushed away the basis upon which John Stuart Mill erected his
political economy, to wit—“the first impulse of mankind is to follow
and obey, servitude rather than freedom is their natural state.”

Not so in the view of Dr. DuBois:

 “No system of social uplift which begins by denying the manhood of a
 man can end by giving him a free ballot, a real education and a just
 wage.”[381]

In reply to this it may be said, that when the Negroes are thoroughly
diffused throughout the United States, they are apt to get as free a
ballot as the whites and proportionately the same education; but when
all who labor, white or black, get a just wage, the millennium will
have arrived and the capitalistic lion will be lying down with the
horny headed laboring lamb.

It cannot be denied, however, that Dr. DuBois stirred up some comment
with his congresses and those who believe in the exhortation—“let
there be light” will be interested in the French and German utterances
thereon.

The Paris Temps, generally considered the organ of the French
government, editorializes in these words:

 “It is the claims of the wiser group which must be studied.... The
 road will be long for Negroes in the League of Nations toward the
 liberation modest though it is, whose program they have elaborated in
 their Congress. But there is nothing to keep us French from putting
 into immediate practice some articles at least of this program to
 start with.”[382]

This is a world wide echo of Hayne’s Speech on the floor of the United
States Senate just about a century earlier. It is also to some extent
an endorsement of Diagne, whom DuBois had criticised as “curiously
timid.” The portrait of the remarkable Senegalese who played such an
Ajax to DuBois’s ambitious Hector does not appear; but an entire front
page of The Crisis is given to Maran, the Black Thersites of the race.

If DuBois would accept Diagne as the leader of the Negro people some
results might come; but the Negro in DuBois will scarcely permit this.
He might accept the far less able white, Oswald Garrison Villard. But
no Negro.

The German comment on the congress is less cautious than the French but
points in the same direction:

 “The Congress was called by Dr. Burghardt DuBois, an American mulatto
 who has been prominent in his native country for many years as a race
 agitator. Its purpose was to draw together all Negro organizations
 throughout the world. The agenda included: the segregation of the
 colored races; the race problem in England, America and South Africa;
 and a future programme....

 The attendance at London and Brussels was very small, but some four
 hundred delegates from every portion of the world participated in the
 proceedings at Paris.... At the London session the radical ideas of
 DuBois, which approached those of Garvey were in the ascendant and
 force was preached as a possible alternative to attain the ends which
 the Negroes have in view.... At Brussels, Deputy Diagne, a member of
 the French Parliament from Senegal, presided. When he saw that radical
 ideas were likely to prevail there also, he arbitrarily terminated
 the session. At Paris the programme was cut and dried.... The
 newspapers gave full and sympathetic reports of the sessions. France
 by this stroke of diplomacy attained her purpose. Under the skilful
 leadership of the French deputy Diagne, the Congress adopted a more
 moderate programme of evolution instead of revolution, culminating in
 a platform demanding equality of all civilized men without distinction
 of race; a systematic plan for educating the colored races; liberty
 for the natives to retain their own religion and manners; restoration
 of native titles to their former lands and to its produce; the
 establishment of an international institute to study and record the
 development of the black race; the protection of the black race by
 the League of Nations; and the creation of a separate section in the
 International Labor Bureau to deal with Negro labor.”[383]

In this report it is claimed both the United States and England are
handled harshly, while France is praised. It seems Sir Harry Johnston
is, to some degree, in accord with this praise of France, at the
expense of his own country, his opinion being:

 “All in all, I am of the opinion that the French nation since 1871 has
 dealt with the Negro problem in Africa and in tropical America more
 wisely, prudently and successfully than we English have done.”[384]

It is this very fluent gifted linguist, in all probability, who is
responsible for the picturesque conclusion:

 “Finally it is perfectly certain that the race question is the rock
 upon which the British Empire will be wrecked or the corner stone upon
 which the greatest political structure in the history of the world
 will be erected.”[385]

But if from a representative of Imperial Germany, the only country
which ever enacted as a part of its organic law the principle of
Nullification, it surpasses in grandiosity and positiveness of
statement the dictum of Calhoun in 1837:

 “We have for the last 12 years been going through a great and
 dangerous juncture. The passage is almost made and, if no new cause
 of difficulty should intervene, it will be successfully made. I, at
 present, see none but the abolition question, which however, I fear
 is destined to shake the country to its centre.... For the first time
 the bold ground has been taken that slaves have a right to petition
 Congress ... itself emancipation.... Our fate as a people is bound
 up in the question. If we yield, we will be extirpated; but if we
 successfully resist, we will be the greatest and most flourishing
 people of modern time. It is the best substratum of population in the
 world and one on which great and flourishing Commonwealths may be most
 easily and safely reared.”[386]

We of the South know, we did not successfully resist emancipation; were
not extirpated; but do form part of “the greatest and most flourishing
people of modern time.” We must realize that, no matter what was the
price paid for it, emancipation was salvation for the South. It was a
deliverance from the “body of death,” Reviewing our history, we find
that in the same year that Calhoun, the greatest disruptive force in
our politics, pronounced the dictum last quoted, a comparatively young
and unknown politician, destined to be the greatest cementing force of
the Union, declared—

 “That the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad
 policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather
 to promote than to abate its evils.”[387]

In discussing this utterance of Lincoln, his latest biographer,
Mr. Stephenson, who declares it reveals the dawn of his intellect,
beautifully pictures how—

 “arise the two ideas, the faith in a mighty governing power; the equal
 faith that it should use its might with infinite tenderness; that it
 should be slow to compel results.”[388]

Going back ten years before the dawn of Lincoln’s intellect, and four
prior to the declaration that the Negro question was, as he, Calhoun,
saw it an African slave substratum on which great and flourishing
commonwealths could be most easily and safely reared, Hayne, on the
floor of the United States Senate, voiced in his own words, Lincoln’s
subsequently sponsored thought.

Harken to Hayne:

 “Thus, Sir, it appears that the Almighty in the wise order of his
 providence has marked out the course of events, which will not only
 remove all danger, but gradually and effectually and in his own good
 time accomplish our deliverance from what gentleman are pleased to
 consider as the curse of the land.”[389]

In 1827, it is apparent that the Negro question was a different
question than it later became to the South; and that the strengthening
and possible spread of slavery was in some measure due to Calhoun’s
devotion to it, over and above all other questions, even before
Nullification, is evidenced by his letter to Maxcy in 1830:

 “I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion rather than the real cause
 of the present unhappy state of things.”[390]

Strange to state, even at that early date, he writes of the South
possibly being compelled to “rebel,” to preserve her “peculiar
institution.”

Fortunately for the Lower South, Lincoln and not Seward was elected
president in 1860; for had Seward been raised to that position of
preeminence, in all human probability the seven States of South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas would have been allowed to secede and attempt the experiment of
government involved therein, with a population of 2,619,116 whites,
36,861 free persons of color, many of whom were slave owners, and
2,312,372 Negro slaves.

That the colored population would have increased rapidly is a
reasonable conclusion. Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and
Tennessee, in all probability, would have speedily divested themselves
of a great proportion of the 1,324,166 slaves they held and, even if
such Southern statesmen as Leonidas Washington Spratt had not been
able to reopen the African slave trade, the smuggling in of slaves on
a greater and greater increasing scale would have been a consequence.
Slavery being the corner stone of the new political structure, it
would have been natural that the view of Governor Seabrook, that slave
holding Negroes should be admitted to the ballot, would have eventually
prevailed. War might have come between the large and small sections
of North America from some frontier incident concerning Arkansas,
the Indian Territory or Mexico; but it could scarcely have been the
pulverizing conflict which the Lower South sustained by the two and
a half million additional whites of Virginia, North Carolina and
Tennessee, maintained for four years of desperate struggle.

Each year that the conflict was delayed would have found the States
which remained in the old Union stronger and whiter, sickling the
seceded States with railroads and quite possibly drawing Canada into
their orbit; for as Sir Charles Dilke has pointed out in his Problems
of Greater Britain, published when the annexation of Canada was still a
debatable question—

 “a fact often overlooked in England is that hitherto the western
 centres of population of British North America have been more
 intimately connected with districts lying South of them across the
 American frontier than with places East and West of them, within the
 Canadian border.”[391]

The days of the “Little Englanders” were only then passing, when the
colonies had almost been considered a nuisance.

But whether the region mapped out now as Winnipeg, Alberta and the
other wheat areas of the Canadian West might have been attached to the
great white Union in the sixties, if undisturbed by war and moving
with continuingly accelerated industrial development or not, the Union
would have become whiter, as the Lower South darkened; and Calhoun’s
“substratum” theory would have there been tested to the fullest extent
and risk.

From this Lincoln’s adroit political play induced the Lower South, by
firing on the flag, to save itself, unknowingly. By the invasion of
Virginia he forced that State, as well as North Carolina and Tennessee,
into the Confederacy, against which, in 1862, he drew the weapon of
emancipation without the least idea as to how deep it must cut. For it
has proven to be a two edged sword.

Nothing more clearly reveals Lincoln’s ignorance of the inevitable
consequences of emancipation, than his message to Congress in December,
1862:

 “But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth and cover
 the whole land. Are they not already in the land? Will liberation make
 them more numerous? Equally distributed among the whites of the whole
 country and there would be but one colored to seven whites. Could the
 one in any way disturb the seven?... But why should emancipation
 South send the free people North? People of any color seldom run
 unless there be something to run from. Heretofore to some extent
 they have fled North from bondage and destitution. But if gradual
 emancipation and deportation be adopted they will have neither to flee
 from.... And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether
 to receive them?”[392]

If this was the Great Emancipator’s view of emancipation, what wonder
that the “Southern color psychosis” should spread like measles, from
contact alone.

The Congressional Reconstructionists thought that they had won in
the war between the States what has since been styled euphoniously,
“a sphere of influence,” a subject people to sell goods to. But the
mass of Northern and Western whites, true Americans, sickened of
the excesses of Congressional Reconstruction. The Federal troops
were withdrawn on the order of a true patriot, Rutherford B. Hayes,
President of the United States, and not of a section.

Chastened and disciplined by their fall from power, the most energetic
and industrious, the boldest and most assertive Negroes have, since
1876, been steadily moving into the mammoth cities of the North and
West, to there build up in the segregated districts, groups of New
Negroes, as the Report of the Chicago riot shows “more perfect thro
suffering.”

By a joint committee of blacks and whites that riot has been discussed
and that makes the discussion the more valuable.

In that great city of two and a half million of inhabitants, after ten
days of riot, bloodshed, arson and murder, in response to the appeal
of representative citizens, Governor Lowden appointed an emergency
committee to study the underlying causes of the riot of 1919 and to
make recommendations. According to the Census of 1920 there were then
in Chicago 109,458 Negroes. The chairman of the committee was Edgar
A. Bancroft, a leading lawyer, subsequently appointed by President
Coolidge Ambassador to Japan. The vice chairman was Dr. Francis W.
Sheppardson, at one time of the University of Chicago. The most
prominent Negro on the Committee was Robert S. Abbott, proprietor of
the greatest and most influential Negro paper in the United States,
_The Chicago Defender_. The report was published in 1922. It indicates
38 persons killed in the riot, 15 whites and 23 Negroes. Of the 527
injured, 178 were white, 342 Negroes, the race denomination of 17 not
being established.

For the 38 deaths, there were nine presentments for murder returned,
four persons being convicted.

While it is stated that the merciless bombing of Negro households was
due to a systematic campaign conducted by the press against Negroes
buying properties to one side of the district in which 90 per cent of
the Negro population reside, that they moved, (on account of their
increase), towards the side to which they did go, rather than in the
opposite direction, the report says—

 “may be explained partly by the hostility which the Irish and Polish
 groups had often shown to Negroes.”[393]

That Negroes were killed deliberately, as a business measure,
in response to propaganda against them simply as Negroes, is an
unavoidable conclusion. Extracts from “The Property Owners Journal”
show that again and again there was an attempt to appeal to a “Higher
Law” than the law of the land. It seems to have been the law of greed.
Here is an extract:

 “Any property owner who sells property anywhere in our district to
 undesirables is an enemy to the white owner and should be discovered
 and punished.... The Negro is using the Constitution and its legal
 rights to abuse the moral rights of the white.”[394]

Following this hypocritical appeal, 58 houses, bought by Negroes,
were bombed, the residence of Jesse Binga, a Negro banker having been
bombed six times without breaking down his firm determination to
stand the storm. The house of a Negro woman was bombed three times.
Her home had been attacked in the riots and the front door battered
down; but, upon calling on the police, she and her husband were by
them arrested, altho’ later acquitted. The report charges gross and
continuous exaggeration during the riot, in which it is distinctly
stated that the Chicago Tribune led, although it is also stated, that
the paper owned by one of the committee, in one instance, could hardly
have been surpassed. That this last statement should have been made,
speaks volumes for the fairness of the committee and the member of
the committee thus concurring with the stricture on himself. It also
states, of the paper published by Robert S. Abbott, “The Defender”:

 “It is probably no exaggeration to say that the Defender’s policy
 prompted thousands of restless Negroes to venture North, where there
 were assured of its protection and championship of their cause.”[395]

The Governor in his FOREWORD states that the report shows “that the
presence of Negroes in large numbers in our great cities is not a
menace in itself.” Incidents cited showed high courage and efficiency
on the part of Negro policeman and the exhibition of a stern sense of
duty controlling race prejudice.

The report says:

 “It is clear that migrant Negroes are not returning South. On the
 contrary there is a small but continuous stream of migration to the
 industrial centres of the North. No great numbers of Negroes returned
 to the South even during the trying unemployment period in the early
 part of 1921.”[396]

Sustaining the country’s stand against the unrestricted immigration of
the ante bellum period, just about this time, the New Republic asserted:

 “If we can hold the gates closed for another decade, these abuses
 are bound to go. Not everybody in America would like this. Nor would
 everybody in America be pleased with another natural consequence
 of restriction, that it will draw more and more Negroes out of the
 rural South, especially the lynching belt for common labor in the
 industries.”[397]

In his FOREWORD to the Chicago report, Governor Lowden places himself
in absolute opposition to Lincoln. He says:

 “Our race problem must be solved in harmony with the fundamental
 law of the nation and with its free institutions. These prevent any
 deportation of the Negro as well as any restriction of his freedom of
 movement within the United States.”[398]

But the report of the Chicago riot contains much more than an
expression of the views of the committee as to the cause of that
outburst of savagery. In its 667 pages are the views of many Negroes on
the greatest variety of subjects. The first article of the belief of
the members of the Negro Urban League of Chicago is—

 “I realize that our soldiers have learned new habits of self-respect
 and cleanliness.”[399]

That is a short sentence, but it contains much.

Here is another which indicates that the Negro will not only learn much
from the Northern and Western white man; but also teach him a bit. It
is not very sweetly expressed, but it is well worth pondering for all
that:

 “There is one trait, and I might say only one, that I take off my
 hat to the southern ‘Cracker’ for, and that is his respect and high
 regard for women. While he hasn’t much for the other fellow’s (the
 Negro’s) wives and daughters, yet he respects his own. We must set
 a good example for him and respect all women, regardless of race,
 color or creed. Then you will win the admiration of all civilized
 people. Men who do not respect and honor their women are not worthy of
 citizenship.”[400]

Only one trait, but what an important one!


FOOTNOTES:

[369] Harding’s Speech at Birmingham, _News and Courier_, Oct. 27, 1921.

[370] Ibid.

[371] Ibid.

[372] Ibid.

[373] _News and Courier_, Editorial, October 27, 1921.

[374] The New Republic, November 9, 1921.

[375] DuBois, The New Republic, December 7, 1921.

[376] Ibid.

[377] Ibid.

[378] Ibid.

[379] Ibid.

[380] The Crisis, December, 1921, p. 53.

[381] Ibid. p. 55.

[382] Ibid. p. 64.

[383] Asmis, The Living Age, February 4, 1922, p. 261.

[384] Ibid. p. 262.

[385] Ibid.

[386] Jameson, Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 368.

[387] Stephenson, Lincoln, p. 32.

[388] Ibid. p. 35.

[389] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, p. 207.

[390] Bassett, Andrew Jackson, Vol. II p. 547.

[391] Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain, p. 20.

[392] Munford, Virginia’s Attitude, Slavery and Secession, p. 173.

[393] Negro in Chicago, p. 8.

[394] Ibid. p. 121.

[395] Ibid. p. 92.

[396] Ibid. p. 105.

[397] The New Republic, February 14, 1923.

[398] Negro in Chicago, p. XXIII.

[399] Ibid. p. 193.

[400] Ibid. p. 306.




CHAPTER XVII


Passing from the report of the Negro riot in Chicago, of 1919 to the
Negro Year Book for the same date, we find therein the assertion, that
the aggregate wealth of the 10,300,000 Negroes in the United States, at
that date, was estimated at $1,100,000,000.

Whatever the wealth or progress of the Negroes in the United States
is asserted to be, at any time, it is customary to allude to it, as
that much in excess of nothing at the time of Emancipation. The Negro
writers in particular are prone to claim this. This has been, in some
degree, shown in this study to be incorrect; but it may be well to go a
little further into the matter.

In the year 1860 the 4,441,800 colored persons in the United States
consisted of 488,070 free persons of color and 3,953,730 Negro and
mulatto slaves. The 488,070 free persons of color were about evenly
divided between the Northern and the Southern States. They possessed
property. What was the probable value of their holdings?

The Census of 1860 shows, that in the city of Charleston, South
Carolina, there were 3,237 free persons of color and that 357 of them
returned property for taxation, on which they paid $12,015.60 in taxes,
mainly upon real estate, probably about seven-eighths of the whole. But
they also paid taxes on income and business, as well as head taxes on
the slaves they owned and upon their horses, carriages and dogs. With
the generally accepted average value for slaves and a safe valuation
for horse-flesh, as the value of the real estate is disclosed, we
can calculate that the aggregate wealth of the free persons of color
in Charleston, S. C., in 1860 must have been about $888,650. Unless
there was some particular advantage, materially, in a residence, by
free persons of color, in that State and city most identified with “the
peculiar institution,” the per capita established can be extended to
the whole population of this class in the United States, at that date;
which would have accordingly amounted to about $133,989,231.

Of course there may have been greater wealth among the free persons of
color in Charleston than in the rest of the State of South Carolina;
but for the same reason there would have been still greater wealth in
New Orleans and the greater cities of the North, where real estate was
necessarily of greater value with a greater growth.

As the free persons of color had more than quadrupled in the six
decades ending in 1860, what reason is there to think that, inured to
the responsibilities of freedom, their rate of increase, after the
emancipation of the mass of slaves, should have materially lessened?

With the Negro slaves emancipated in mass it would be different; and
therefore it is not at all unlikely, that of the $1,100,000,000 owned
in 1919 by the entire Negro population of the United States, something
like $535,957,124 should be credited to the descendants of the free
persons of color, best equipped at the outset to reap their share
of the wealth the War between the States brought to the North and
West, rather than to the greater number of the emancipated remaining
in the impoverished South and suffering with the whites the evils of
Congressional Reconstruction. That it took the South until 1890 to
regain in material wealth what they had lost between 1861 and 1876,
while in the same period the advance in material gain in the North and
West was the envy of the world, but clinches the argument.

Selfishness is, however, not infrequently the accompaniment of
increasing prosperity and, therefore, it should not surprise any
thoughtful individual to note, that the cultured DuBois and not a few
of his white acclaimers look somewhat askance at the steady movement of
the Southern Negroes out of the South and into the North and West.

This is not the attitude, however, of that Negro whose name heads the
report of the committee on the Chicago riot.

Robert S. Abbott comes nearer the Biblical description of the owner
of the vineyard. He wishes to share with the laborers of his race the
fields he has garnered so successfully with his weekly paper, the
“Chicago Defender” and therefore whatever may be his extravagances of
expression, he seems to be the most unselfish leader the Negroes have.

In thus turning to the weekly rather than attempting the more ambitious
daily, the Negroes show a clear-sightedness to their credit.

 “Negro papers are published weekly because they cannot compete with
 the daily papers in providing any part of the public with news from
 day to day.”[401]

This is a very simple statement, but it contains a great amount of
wisdom.

For that part of humanity which lacks wealth the weekly paper is a
great protector. The news passes thro’ a filterer. It gives the honest
editor and publisher an opportunity to scrutinize that which the fierce
competition for the daily item of news may hardly permit.

The call for copy is not infrequently a call of distress. To fill
a void may bring about a hasty selection of cartoon plate, by no
means hastily prepared; but possibly for just such a contingency.
These so selected, not seldom undo the effect of an editorial, while
much masquerading as news, but in reality propaganda, may be hastily
slapped into the forms around two o’clock in the morning. The Negroes,
therefore, in clinging to weeklies “are wiser in their generation than
the children of light.”

Happily for humanity, sentimentality destroyed slavery of the Negroes
in the United States; but the result was an intense stimulation of
economic slavery of whites and blacks, by the simple process of letting
in from Europe masses of whites, many of whom were below the standards
of numbers of American Negroes. That having been checked, the Negro
laborer in every line must now measure himself against the Slav and the
Latin. In physical power he is superior to the Latin; but the Latin
makes up for it in greater pertinacity and orderliness of method. While
the statement will probably be received with derision, the training of
the slave by the Southern slave-holder and the working of the Negro by
the Southerner is not at the driving pace at which the North and West
move, and under that spur the Northern Negro becomes a more efficient
tool. But North or South the mass has been helped more than hindered
by that which a cultivated young Negro addressing one of the leading
educational institutions of the United States thus described:

 “The savage and the child, to rise to higher things must feel the
 power of a stronger hand. This is the special blessing of the American
 Negro and has in forty years set him centuries ahead of his Haytien
 brother, who has been self governing for one hundred years.”[402]

Even if he has since recanted, this was the view of William Pickens
in 1903, when awarded the Ten Eyck Prize at Yale University. But if
the Negro is affected by the presence of the white to the Negro’s
betterment, it is only fair and just to quote a Southern opinion with
regard to the reverse.

Only two years later than the award to Pickens at Yale University,
a Southern scholar published “The Coming Crisis”; which despite the
fact that it is written in flawless English, exhibits a symmetry of
composition which is altogether admirable, and advances views held
today by a vast number, not a few of whom have achieved some reputation
in the discussion of them less intelligently than Mr. Pinckney in 1905,
his book, nevertheless, at that date, fell absolutely flat. What Mr.
Pinckney discerned before the World War others can now also see. His
view of the Negro problem was not in accord with the view of the author
of this study. He would have been surprised to hear that it could have
been thought to be in accord with that of Abraham Lincoln, to a great
degree, altho’ with some differences. But in Pinckney’s discussion the
Negro is merely incidental to the subject which is to him so inspiring
as to be visualized in a passage worth pondering:

 “It seems probable that the history of the United States is calculated
 to furnish more complete and more striking illustration of the
 working of political principles than was ever furnished to the world
 before. It is an experiment on so grand a scale and interests so
 gigantic are at stake that enthusiasm itself is overwhelmed in the
 contemplation. It was too much to hope for, that such an experiment
 should be successful from the start. Not so lightly might the latest
 and greatest blessing to mankind, the gift of rational liberty, be
 wrested from reluctant nature. Not without thorns and blood and agony
 might such a crown be won. Were the reward to be more easily obtained,
 possibly those who won it would have proved unworthy to enjoy it.
 Let those remember this that fear for the fate of the Republic. So
 will their hearts be filled afresh with courage. So from within will
 well up new healing streams of hope, balm of hurt minds, refreshing,
 comfortable. To fall from grace is to learn the pathway of salvation
 and, like the prodigal son, to become a partaker of joys before
 unknown.”[403]

Nowhere can be found a more delicate satire, than the chapter in his
book which is entitled “Salary and Sentiment—Reason and Revenue.” There
is also very clear and convincing reasoning. But it is in regard to
what Mr. Pinckney has to say of the presence of the Negroes in the
South that reference now is had.

In opposition to the view of Wade Hampton, M. C. Butler and Carlyle
McKinley, according to Mr. Pinckney:

 “The States themselves must control the Negro question, or the
 American system is at an end. Effort on the part of the Federal
 Government to control or even to tamper with this matter must at all
 times result, as it has hitherto invariably resulted, in riot and
 anarchy. Thus, as far as the South is concerned, the very highest
 sanctions possible are by natural law attached to strict observance
 of the true constitutional construction. To travel the constitutional
 path is safety and happiness; to wander from it is instant anarchy.
 ... The purpose is to protect all local affairs against intrusion from
 without, but among those affairs first and foremost has always stood
 the Negro Question, in which there can be no hesitation, choice or
 possibility of alternative. Thus the smaller matter of the presence of
 the Negro is included in the larger class of matters which comprise
 the whole range of local interests.... The Negro is thus the (wholly
 unconscious) means of illustrating the necessity for constitutional
 self government. His presence effectually prevents the South from
 departing for an instant from the Constitutional pathway. Cuffy must
 be remembered if the Republic is to be saved.”[404]

This is in agreement with the view, that the Southern States are
Democratic, because the presence of the Negro, now freed, forces them
to be so.

There may be truth in that; but it may be, that they are and have been
Democratic in spite of the Negro.

The publication of the List of Tax-Payers in Charleston, “The Hot-Bed
of Secession”, in 1860 was an illustration of the thorough-going
democracy of the place and the people, at that time. It was an open
display of the strength and weakness of each and every governmental
burden bearer, and of the burdens imposed. What could be more
democratic than that? There was a tax of 1.4 per cent on real estate;
a tax of 1.4 per cent on stocks of goods. There was no tax on bonds
and no tax on stock, because, without interest or dividends, the scrip
is mere paper. But there was a tax on interest and dividends of 2.5
per cent; the same on gross income; commissions; annuities and gross
receipts of all commercial agencies. On premiums of insurance there
was a tax of 1.25 per cent. On capital in shipping, as it should have
been, the tax was light, only .75 per cent; for shipping is the very
life of a seaport. But it was also gainful, so it was taxed for some of
its gain. The foolish idea of absolute exemption was avoided. Luxuries
were taxed fairly, in the additional head taxes. The carriage drawn
by two horses was taxed a third more than the carriage drawn by one.
Sulkeys were taxed lower than one horse carriages and horses and mules
lower still. Slaves were taxed, but the head tax of $3 per slave, when
it is realized that some sold for $1200 apiece was indefensibly light
compared to the tax on horse-flesh and property of that kind. One per
cent on a Negro to ten per cent on a mule by the average value and
lessening with the increase of value of either was an immense incentive
to slave-holding. With apparently this one exception, in the absence of
that procrustean bed, the uniform rate, upon which all property which
cannot be concealed is now stretched, the wealthy paid according to
their wealth, the poor according to their poverty; but all, who had
anything, contributed to the general welfare, and bore a fair share of
the general burden.

That is the real reason why they fought so long and well. For instance
on $385,000 of real estate, 28 slaves, 1 carriage and 2 horses, Otis
Mills and Otis Mills & Co. paid a tax of $5,524. On $281,000 of real
estate, 14 slaves, a carriage and 2 horses, William Aiken paid a tax of
$4,027.40. On $101,500 of real estate, $2,724.16, interest on bonds, 3
slaves and $45,000 of shipping, the estate of James Adger paid a tax
of $1,835.60. On $15,000 of real estate, $1,982 interest on bonds,
$14,642 commissions, 14 slaves, 1 carriage, 3 horses and 2 dogs, Wm.
C. Bee and Wm. C. Bee & Co. paid a tax of $732.60. On a stock of goods
$16,000, commissions $9,000, Jeffords & Co. paid a tax of $449. On
$8,000 shipping, $4,600 income and 3 slaves E. Lafitte & Co. paid a tax
of $184. On a stock of goods of $1,000, Samuel P. Lawrence paid a tax
of $14. On 1 slave Mrs. M. S. H. Godber paid a tax of $3. On $200 of
real estate Dr. Charles M. Hitchcock paid a tax of $1.80. On a stock
of goods valued at $100, C. H. Brunson paid a tax of $1.40. The tax
imposed on the manufacture of gas light was lighter than that imposed
on shipping; but it was gainful and on a capital of $755,700 the
Company paid a tax $3,778.50.[405]

That the condition of the Southern States was incalculably improved
by the abolition of slavery is the firm belief of the author of this
study. But that from the tax legislation that followed, the morals of
all have suffered tremendously, is the belief of many, with which he
agrees.

The presence of the Negroes in the masses in which they still remained
in the South after emancipation retarded even the remarkable recovery
that the South has made. In this year of 1925, the first in a century
in which the white population of South Carolina has exceeded in numbers
the colored, it is apparent that the small industries of country life
are becoming distinctly more gainful. Why? With lessening mass the
Negro is feeling the effect of environment. He is less of a pilferer.
And with less friction and consequent material gain, wider opens the
door to literature and art.

That there is an immense educational power in art has again and again
been demonstrated by artists who have had a purpose deeper than—“Art
for art’s sake.”

As an illustration, one cannot fail to note that while the educated
Negroes of the North could not possibly take at the hands of a Negro
Union soldier, who had fought for the freedom of the race and gone
thro’ the days of Congressional Reconstruction without a stain, as
a distinct Legislative leader, a faithful description of the great
mass of Negroes in the South, they acclaimed the French Negro author
of “Batouala,” whose realistic novel of the Negro in Africa while
criticising severely their white French rulers, damns the Negroes,
even more so. The book is not only interesting, it is instructive to
those who need the instruction; and the increasing numbers of educated
Negroes at the North needed just such a book, in order to show them
what they were rescued from in Africa.

Rene Maran says:

 “My book is not a polemic. It comes by chance when its hour strikes.
 The Negro Question is of the present. Who made it that? Why the
 Americans.”

Describing French Colonial Africa, he quotes, the Senegalese, Diagne:

 “—the best settlers have been not the professional colonials, but the
 European troops from the trenches.”[406]

This is in the preface.

The book opens with the awakening of the hero “Batouala” in the hut in
which he sleeps with his eighth and favorite wife, Yassiguindjia. It
recalls another awakening in another realistic piece of literature,
“Old Bram” in “The Black Border.” The only difference is between the
awakening of a wolf and the awakening of an old watch dog, “the friend
of man,” a tamed wolf. The story revolves around the politics and
desires of Batouala, Bissibingui and Yassiguindjia. Batouala is a wolf
who cares for the pack; Bissibingui, a young wolf, as fierce, who cares
but for himself and his desires. Yassiguindjia can only be described by
one of the items with which she was purchased.

In “The Black Border” it is true we are in South Carolina, along the
coast; but, as has been eloquently stated by a Scotch South Carolinian,
in that region “there is Africa in every breath we draw.” With
artistic power Maran pictures the sounds of the African dawn.

 “Daylight broke. Although heavy with sleep still, Batouala—Batouala,
 the Mokoundji, chief of so many villages—was quite conscious of these
 sounds. He yawned, shivered and stretched himself. Should he go to
 sleep again? Should he get up? God! Why get up? He did not even wish
 to know why....

 “Now merely to get up—didn’t that require an enormous effort? In
 itself a perfectly simple decision, so it seemed. As a matter of fact
 it was hard; for getting up and working were one and the same thing,
 at least to the whites.... Life is short. Work is for those who will
 never understand life. Doing nothing does not degrade a man. In the
 eyes of one who sees things truly, it differs from laziness. As for
 him, Batouala, until it was proved to the contrary, he would believe
 that to do nothing was simply to profit by everything that surrounds
 us. To live from day to day without thought of yesterday or care for
 the morrow, without looking ahead—that was perfect.”[407]

What a perfect picture of the Negro without “the power of a stronger
hand,” which William Pickens saw so clearly the need of in 1903. And
the philosophy of it! Moved to visit Africa in 1924, Dr. DuBois makes a
discovery:

 “I began to notice it as I entered Southern France. I formulated it in
 Portugal. I knew it as a great truth one Sunday in Liberia. And the
 great truth was this: Efficiency and happiness do not go together in
 modern culture.... And laziness; divine, eternal languor is right and
 good and true.”[408]

The Doctor praises the “manners” of the Africans.

 “Their manners were better than those of Park Lane or Park Avenue,
 Rittenhouse Square or the North Shore.... The primitive black man is
 courteous and dignified.... Wherefore shall we all take to the Big
 Bush? No I prefer New York.”[409]

As to the great truth, happiness depends upon what is in the soul of
the man, not upon his surroundings.

But Batouala while he disliked work could exert himself to hunt or
fight. His grievance was that which has moved men more than any other
thro’ all the ages. He and his people were too heavily taxed. He
gathered the people together and harangued them.

 “A drunken crowd pressed up behind the group of which Batouala was the
 centre. They reviled the whites. Batouala was right, a thousand times
 right. Of old before the coming of the whites, they had lived happily.
 They had worked a little for themselves, they had eaten and drunk and
 slept. From time to time they had had bloody palavers and had plucked
 the livers from the dead to eat their courage and incorporate it in
 themselves. Such had been the happy days of old, before the coming of
 the whites.”[410]

Then follows a description of the great dance.

 “Bissibingui was the handsomest of all. The strongest too. His
 muscles stood out. His eyes glowed like the brush on fire.... What
 had gone before was nothing. All the preceding noises and outcries,
 the confused dancing had only been a preparation for what was to
 come—the dance of love, scarcely ever danced but on this evening,
 when they were permitted to indulge in debauchery and crime....
 Couples formed.... It was the immense joy of brutes loosed from all
 control.... A couple dancing fell to the ground.

 Suddenly his fingers twitching about a knife in his hand, Batouala,
 the Mokoundji rushed upon this couple. He was foaming. His fist was
 raised for the blow. More nimble than monkeys, Bissibingui and
 Yassiguindjia leapt out of his reach. He pursued them. Ah, these
 children of a dog had the impudence to desire each other before his
 very eyes. He’d have the skin of that strumpet. As for Bissibingui ...
 Ah, wouldn’t the women make fun of him then. Yassiguindjia! The idea!
 Hadn’t he bought her with seven waist cloths, a box of salt, three
 copper collars, a bitch, four pots, six hens, twenty she goats, forty
 big baskets of millet, and a girl slave! Ah, he’d make Yassiguindjia
 take the test poison.”[411]

But the arrival of the commandant saves the guilty couple. Batouala,
however, still plots the life of Bissibingui, who is plotting the
robbery of his own people, as one of the commandant’s soldiery. In
the great hunt Batouala hurls a javelin at his rival, misses him and
is himself struck down by an infuriated passing panther. So the dark
patriot falls and the black scalawag wins. It is an impressive picture
of African life, the men, the women and the conjugality.

Turn we now to the coast of South Carolina, where in “The Black
Border,” the scene is laid, for “Jim Moultrie’s Divorce,” the deepest
in discernment of all the life like sketches of that moving book.

Jim, too, was a great hunter, an unwearied pursuer. No animal. But a
black man. A believer in divorce, as almost all Negroes in America are,
even in South Carolina, where the law refuses it.

At the end of a cold blustering day in February, after pushing his
clumsy dug-out canoe into every creek and lead of the Jehossee marshes,
to flush ducks for the white sportsman who had hired him, at sun set
he is turning home. How the picture appeals to us of the coast.

 “Far up the river, like low hung stars, twinkled the watch fires of a
 great timber raft outward bound for the estuary of the North Edisto.
 From a distant plantation came the sweet lu-la-lu of a happy Negro
 freed from work. The raft borne upon the bosom of the strong ebb
 tide, neared rapidly, and around its fires, built on earth covered
 platforms, the negro raftsmen talked and laughed as they cooked their
 supper and the flames lighted the face and magnified the figure of the
 black steersman who stood by the great sweep oar, with which at the
 stern of the raft, he guided its course down stream.

 For an hour Jim had silently bucked the tide, impelling the boat under
 the powerful strokes of his paddle, alternately left and right.

 ‘What are you thinking of Jim?’

 ‘Study ’bout ’ooman, suh.’ (A short silence).

 ‘Ooman shishuh cuntrady t’ing, dem nebbuh know w’en dem well off. You
 kin feed dem, you kin pit clo’es puntop dem back, you kin pit shoo
 ’puntop dem feet, you kin pit hat ’puntop dem head, you kin pit money
 een dem han’, en’ still yet oonah nebbuh know de ’ooman, nebbuh know
 w’en dem min’ gwine sattify. Dem fuhrebbuh duh lookout fuh trubble.
 Ef dem ent meet trubble duh paat’, dem gwine hunt fuhr’um duh ’ood. I
 dunkyuh how soeb’uh fudduh de trubble dey, dem gwine fin ’um. Ef dem
 cyan’ see ’e track fuh trail ’um, dem gwine pit dem nose een de du’t
 en’ try fuh smell ’um, but dem gwine fin’um. I duh study ’pun dat wife
 I nyuse fuh hab, name Mary. Look how him done, w’en him hab no cajun!
 You yeddy ’bout me trubble, enty suh? Lemme tell you. One Sat’d’y
 night I gone home frum de ribbuh. I tek two duck’, bakin, flour en’
 sugar en’ tea, den I pit fibe dolluh’ een Mary’ lap. Enty you know,
 suh, dat is big money fuh t’row een nigguh’ lap? W’en I binnuh boy
 en’ you t’row uh ’ooman fifty cent, ’e t’ink ’e rich, but I bin all
 dat week wid one cump’ny uh dese yuh rich Nyankee buckruh’ dat Mr.
 FitzSimmon hab yuh fuh shoot, en’ dem buckruh’ t’row me fibe dolluh
 bill same lukkuh dem bin dime’! W’en I t’row de money in de ’ooman’
 lap, en pit de todduh t’ing wuh I fetch ’pun de flo’, Mary nebbuh
 crack ’e teet’. I ax ’um ’smattuh mek ’um stan ’so? ’E mek ansuh,
 ’nutt’n’. Nex’ day de ’ooman keep on same fashi’n. ’E nebbuh crack
 ’e bre’t. I quizzit ’um ’gen. I ax ’um ’smattuh ’long ’um. Him say,
 ‘nutt’n’. Den I say ‘berry well den.’ Monday mawnin’ I tek me gun, I
 call me dog en’ den I talk to de ’ooman. I say, ‘Mary, I gwine duh
 ribbuh, en’ I gwine come back Sat’d’y two week’. I dunnoh ’smattuh mek
 you stan’so, but I know suh de debble dey een you. No ’ooman ’puntop
 dis ribbuh hab mo’ den you, no ’ooman get so much, but I yent able fuh
 lib dis way ’long no ’ooman wuh ti ’up ’e mout’, en w’en I cum back
 las’ Sat’d’y two week’ I gwine’ tarry gate you one mo’ time, en’ I
 gwine ax you ’smattuh mek you stan’ so, en if oonah still een de same
 min ’ez now, den me nuh you paa’t.”[412]

The obstinate silence of the woman is related and the parting in
silence. Then follows the attempt of the woman to appease him, her
jealousy gone. His refusal. His resentment that she should have
believed an idle lie. His determination that it was too late. And then
the last two lines, which hold so much.

 “Have you another wife Jim?”

 “I had dat gal you see wid me dis mawnin’ een Mr. Fitz-Simmun’ yaa’d.
 Him ent wut’!”[413]

Jim Moultrie’s conceptions as to conjugality might be improved upon;
but they are certainly cycles ahead of Batouala’s. It is in the
sketches this book contains and in the altogether admirable “Duel in
Cummings” that we find the Southern coast country Negro as he is,
most observant, not lacking in a homely philosophy, and, as Thomas,
the Ohio Negro, noted (altho’ utterly lacking it himself) a creature
of infinite humor. Whence does he derive it? He seems to lose it to
some extent as he moves out of the coast region. But he becomes more
efficient. He has benefited immensely by his sojourn in America. He
ought to take more interest in his race elsewhere than the cultivated
members seem to. It is good for the Negroes of the United States that
numbers should continue to move into the Northern and Western States.
It is providing a most interesting experiment. The urban Negro dwellers
of the great cities of the North and West are furnishing a most
interesting illustration of that mysterious power which leads humanity
to its betterment. By the Census of 1920, in the great city of New
York there were 152,467 Negroes. By the estimates of the Department
of Commerce for July, 1923, this had been increased to 183,248.[414]
Unless the migratory movement has slowed down as that estimate is for
July 1, 1923, the Negro population of New York, today must be 194,445,
with that of Philadelphia at 163,248 and Chicago at 148,326. There is
no urban Negro population of these figures anywhere in the Southern
States. The nearest would be New Orleans where the Negro population may
be 107,530. But in addition in the great cities which stretch along and
thro’ the rich and populous territory between New York and Chicago up
to the borders of Canada the Negro population is steadily increasing.
Detroit at the very door of Canada holds a Negro population greater
than that of any Southern city except New Orleans; for Baltimore is
practically a Northern city now.

While the urban Negro population of the Southern States appears to
be increasing it is scarcely increasing at the rate at which it is
increasing in the great section of the North above described and as
has been shown in not a few States of the South the Negro population
as a whole is decreasing slightly; while the white population is
increasing actively. But the civilization of the Southern whites has
been handicapped by the weight of the Negro population which it has
carried for a century and more. It should not bear any more than its
fair proportion of that load and in the natural movement of the Negroes
from the South up to the north central portion of the Union and to some
extent into Canada, by the amalgamation of Negroes and mulattoes, a
brown people affected by the civilization of these sections, differing
in some degrees from the darker Negroes who will more slowly develop
in the Southern States, will show in their progress what the North and
West can do to improve them. With ever lessening numbers in the South,
they will the better respond to their environment, which will be the
better for such lessening. The result will be the advance of all to a
better condition and a higher plane of thought.


FOOTNOTES:

[401] Negro in Chicago, p. 567.

[402] Yale Lit. Magazine, p. 237.

[403] Pinckney, The Coming Crisis, p. 61.

[404] Ibid. p. 58.

[405] Evans & Cogswell; List of Taxpayers Charleston, S. C. 1860.

[406] Rene Maran, Batouala, pp. 10, 12.

[407] Ibid. pp. 22, 24.

[408] The Nation, December 17, 1924, p. 675.

[409] Ibid.

[410] Rene Maran, Batouala, p. 90.

[411] Ibid. pp. 98, 103, 105, 106, 107.

[412] Gonzales, The Black Border, pp. 212, 213, 214.

[413] Ibid. p. 215.

[414] Department of Commerce, Estimates of population, p. 138.




  Transcriber’s Notes

  pg 10 Changed: the assent of their constitutents
             to: the assent of their constituents

  pg 20 Changed: accompained by an ever increasing investment
             to: accompanied by an ever increasing investment

  pg 55 Changed: so lamentable an occurence
             to: so lamentable an occurrence

  pg 76 Changed: promotion of this homogeniety
             to: promotion of this homogeneity

  pg 110 Changed: did’nt have a leg to stand upon
              to: didn’t have a leg to stand upon

  pg 126 Changed: they were slighly surprised
              to: they were slightly surprised

  pg 131 Changed: assailants with five casulties
              to: assailants with five casualties

  pg 133 Changed: has in its revoluntionary progress
              to: has in its revolutionary progress

  pg 146 Changed: whatever it may me called
              to: whatever it may be called

  pg 150 Changed: peace between ‘the two countires
              to: peace between ‘the two countries

  pg 152 Changed: the ruling politicial leaders
              to: the ruling political leaders

  pg 158 Changed: comparitively small price
              to: comparatively small price

  pg 160 Changed: securing wealth and properity
              to: securing wealth and prosperity

  pg 163 Changed: who declared of this colored offical
              to: who declared of this colored official

  pg 174 Changed: more properous and progressive
              to: more prosperous and progressive

  pg 174 Changed: attain the full statue
              to: attain the full stature

  pg 175 Changed: enlightment and progress
              to: enlightenment and progress

  pg 178 Changed: Five yeare before Booker Washington
              to: Five years before Booker Washington

  pg 196 Changed: Lower South the responsibilty
              to: Lower South the responsibility

  pg 197 Changed: preventitive of the breaking up
              to: preventative of the breaking up

  pg 197 Changed: seven-eighths of Caucasion blood
              to: seven-eighths of Caucasian blood

  pg 203 Changed: all hopes of social eqality
              to: all hopes of social equality

  pg 233 Changed: which if taken generaly
              to: which if taken generally

  pg 243 Changed: Iimmigration Facts and Figures
              to: Immigration Facts and Figures

  pg 305 Changed: Meanwhile the mass are growing
              to: Meanwhile the masses are growing

  pg 338 Changed: eternal langour is right and good
              to: eternal languor is right and good