The Historic Background of the Negro Physician

In a homogeneous society where there is no racial cleavage, only the selected members of the most favored class occupy the professional stations. The element representing the social status of the Negro would, therefore, furnish few members of the coveted callings. The element of race, however, complicates every feature of the social equation. In India we are told that the population is divided horizontally by caste and vertically by religion; but in America the race spirit serves both as horizontal and vertical separations. The Negro is segregated and shut in to himself in all social and semi-social relations of life. This isolation necessitates separate ministrative agencies from the lowest to the highest rounds of the ladder of service. During the days of slavery the interests of the master demanded that he should direct the general social and moral life of the slave, and should provide especially for his physical well-being. The sudden severance of this tie left the Negro wholly without intimate guidance and direction. The ignorant must be enlightened, the sick must be healed, and the poor must have the gospel preached to them. The situation and circumstances under which the race found itself demanded that its professional class, for the most part, should be men of their own blood and sympathies. The needed service could not be effectively performed by those who assumed and asserted racial arrogance, and bestowed their professional service as cold crumbs that fell from the master's table. The professional class who are to uplift and direct the lowly must not say, "So far shalt thou come, but not any farther," but rather, "Where I am, there ye shall be also."

There is no more pathetic chapter in the history of human struggle than the emergence of the smothered ambition of this race to meet the social exigencies involved in the professional needs of the masses. In an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, the plowhand was transformed into a priest, the barber into a bishop, the housemaid into a schoolmistress, the day-laborer into a lawyer, and the porter into a physician. These high places of intellectual and professional authority, into which they found themselves thrust by stress of social necessity, had to be operated with at least some semblance of conformity to the standards which had been established by the European through the traditions of the ages. The higher place in society occupied by the choicest members of the white race, and that too after long years of arduous preparation, had to be assumed by black men without personal or formal fitness. The stronger and more aggressive natures pushed themselves into these higher callings by sheer force of untutored energy and uncontrolled ambition.

An accurate study of the healing art as practiced by Negroes in Africa as well as its continuance after transplantation in America would form an investigation of great historical interest. This, however, is not the purpose of this paper. It is sufficient to note the fact that witchcraft and the control of disease through roots, herbs, charms and conjuration are universally practiced on the continent of Africa. Indeed, the medicine man has a standing and influence that is sometimes superior to that of kings and queens. The natives of Africa have discovered their own materia medica by actual practice and experience with the medicinal value of minerals and plants. It must be borne in mind that any pharmacopeia must rest upon the basis of practical experiment and experience. The science of medicine was developed by man in his groping to relieve pain and to curb disease, and was not handed down ready made from the skies. In this groping, the African, like the rest of the children of men, has been feeling after the right remedies, if haply he might find them.

It was inevitable that the prevailing practice of conjuration in Africa should be found among Negroes after they had been transferred to the new continent. The conjure man was well known in every slave community. He generally turned his art, however, to malevolent rather than benevolent uses; but this was not always the case. Not infrequently these medicine men gained such wide celebrity among their own race as to attract the attention of the whites. As early as 1792 a Negro by the name of Cesar¹ had gained such distinction for his curative knowledge of roots and herbs that the Assembly of South Carolina purchased his freedom and gave him an annuity of one hundred pounds.

That slaves not infrequently held high rank among their own race as professional men may be seen from the advertisements of colonial days. A runaway Negro named Simon was in 1740 advertised in The Pennsylvania Gazette² as being able to "bleed and draw teeth" and "pretending to be a great doctor among his people." Referring in 1797 to a fugitive slave of Charleston, South Carolina, The City Gazette and Daily Advertiser³ said: "He passes for a Doctor among people of his color and it is supposed practices in that capacity about town." The contact of such practitioners with the white race was due to the fact that the profession of the barber was at one time united with that of the physician. The practice of phlebotomy was considered an essential part of the doctor's work. As the Negro early became a barber and the profession was united with that of the physician, it is natural to suppose that he too would assume the latter function. That phlebotomy was considered an essential part of the practice of the medicine is seen from the fact that it was practiced upon George Washington in his last illness. An instance of this sort of professional development among the Negroes appears in the case of the barber, Joseph Ferguson. Prior to 1861 he lived in Richmond, Virginia, uniting the three occupations of leecher, cupper, and barber. This led to his taking up the study of medicine in Michigan, where he graduated and practiced for many years.

The first regularly recognized Negro physician, of whom there is a complete record, was James Derham, of New Orleans. He was born in Philadelphia in 1762, where he was taught to read and write, and instructed in the principles of Christianity. When a boy he was transferred by his master to Dr. John Kearsley, Jr., who employed him occasionally to compound medicines, and to perform some of the more humble acts of attention to his patients. Upon the death of Dr. Kearsley, he became (after passing through several hands) the property of Dr. George West, surgeon to the Sixteenth British Regiment, under whom, during the Revolutionary War, he performed many of the menial duties of the medical profession. At the close of the war, he was sold by Dr. West to Dr. Robert Dove at New Orleans, who employed him as an assistant in his business, in which capacity he gained so much of his confidence and friendship, that he consented to liberate him, after two or three years, upon easy terms. From Dr. Derham's numerous opportunities of improving in medicine, he became so well acquainted with the healing art, as to commence practicing in New Orleans, under the patronage of his last master. He once did business to the amount of three thousand dollars a year. Benjamin Rush, who had the opportunity to meet him, said: "I have conversed with him upon most of the acute and epidemic diseases of the country where he lives and was pleased to find him perfectly acquainted with the modern simple mode of practice on those diseases. I expected to have suggested some new medicines to him; but he suggested many more to me. He is very modest and engaging in his manners. He speaks French fluently and has some knowledge of the Spanish language."⁴

The most noted colored physician after the time of James Derham was Doctor James McCune Smith, a graduate of the University of Glasgow. He began the practice of medicine in New York about 1837, and soon distinguished himself as a physician and surgeon. He passed as a man of unusual merit not only among his own people but among the best elements of that metropolis. That he was appreciated by the leading white physicians of the city is evidenced by the fact that in 1852 he was nominated as one of the five men to draft a constitution for the "Statistic Institute" of which he became a leading member. For a number of years he held the position of physician to the colored orphan asylum, serving on the staff with a number of white doctors.

Living in a day when the Negro was the subject of much anthropological and physiological discussion, Doctor Smith could not resist participating in this controversy. There were at this time a number of persons who were resorting to science to prove the inferiority of the Negro. Given a hearing extending over several evenings, Doctor Smith ably discussed "The Comparative Anatomy of the Races" before an assembly of the most distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the city, triumphing over his antagonist. In 1846 he produced a valuable work entitled "The Influence of Climate on Longevity, with Special Reference to Insurance." This paper was written as a refutation of a disquisition of John C. Calhoun on the colored race. Among other things Doctor Smith said: "The reason why the proportion of mortality is not a measure of longevity, is the following: The proportion of mortality is a statement of how many persons die in a population; this, of course, does not state the age at which those persons die. If 1 in 45 die in Sweden, and 1 in 22 in Grenada, the age of the dead might be alike in both countries; here the greater mortality might actually accompany the greater longevity."⁵

The first real impetus to bring Negroes in considerable numbers into the professional world came from the American Colonization Society, which in the early years flourished in the South as well as in the North. This organization hoped to return the free Negroes to Africa and undertook to prepare professional leaders of their race for the Liberian colony. "To execute this scheme, leaders of the colonization movement endeavored to educate Negroes in mechanic arts, agriculture, science and Biblical literature. Exceptionally bright youths were to be given special training as catechists, teachers, preachers and physicians. Not much was said about what they were doing, but now and then appeared notices of Negroes who had been prepared privately in the South or publicly in the North for service in Liberia. Dr. William Taylor and Dr. Fleet were thus educated in the District of Columbia. In the same way John V. DeGrasse, of New York, and Thomas J. White, of Brooklyn, were allowed to complete the medical course at Bowdoin in 1849. In 1854 Dr. DeGrasse was admitted as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society. In 1858 the Berkshire Medical School graduated two colored doctors who were gratuitously educated by the American Educational Society."⁶ Dr. A. T. Augusta studied medicine at the University of Toronto. He qualified by competitive examination and obtained the position of surgeon in the United States Army, being the first Negro to hold such a position. After the war he became one of the leading colored physicians in the District of Columbia. Prior to 1861 Negroes had taken courses at the Medical School of the University of New York; Caselton Medical School in Vermont; Berkshire Medical School in Pittsfield, Massachusetts; the Rush Medical School in Chicago; the Eclectic Medical School in Philadelphia; the Homeopathic College of Cleveland; and the Medical School of Harvard University.

The next colored physician of prominence was Martin R. Delany. Delany grew to manhood in Pittsburgh, where early in his career he began the study of medicine, but abandoned it for pursuits in other parts. In 1849 he returned to that city and resumed his studies under Doctors Joseph P. Gazzan and Francis J. Lemoyne, who secured for him admission to the medical department of Harvard College after he had been refused by the University Pennsylvania, Jefferson College, and the medical colleges of Albany and Geneva, New York. After leaving Harvard, he, like Dr. Smith, became interested in the discussion of the superiority and inferiority of races, and traveled extensively through the West, lecturing with some success on the physiological aspect of these subjects. He then returned to Pittsburgh, where he became a practitioner and distinguished himself in treating the cholera during the epidemic of 1854. About this time his worth to the community was attested by his appointment as a member of the Subcommittee of Referees who furnished the Municipal Board of Charity with medical advice as to the needs of white and colored persons desiring aid. In 1856 he removed to Chatham, Canada, where he practiced medicine a number of years. Doctor Delany thereafter like William Wells Brown, an occasional physician, devoted most of his time to the uplift of his people, traveling in America, Africa and England. He became such a worker among his people that he was known as a leader rather than a physician. He served in the Civil War as a commissioned officer of the United States Army, ranking as major.

Up to this point the colored physician had appeared as an occasional or exceptional individual, but hardly as forming a professional class. Following the wake of the Civil War colleges and universities were planted in all parts of the South for the sake of preparing leaders for the newly emancipated race. Several medical schools were established in connection with these institutions. The rise of the Negro physician as a professional class may be dated from the establishment of these institutions. The School of Medicine of Howard University, Washington, D.C., and the Meharry Medical College at Nashville, Tennessee, proved to be the strongest of these institutions and today are supplying the Negro medical profession with a large number of its annual recruits.

Dr. Charles B. Purvis, who was graduated from the Medical College of Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1865, is perhaps the oldest colored physician in the United States; and by general consent ranks as dean of the fraternity. He shared with Dr. A. T. Augusta the honor of being one of the few colored men to become surgeons in the United States Army. Shortly after graduation he was made assistant surgeon in the Freedmen's Hospital at Washington, D.C., with which institution he was connected during the entire period of his active professional life. The development and present position of the medical school at Howard University is due to Dr. Purvis more than to any other single individual. For several years he has been retired upon the Carnegie Foundation. Dr. George W. Hubbard, a distinguished white physician, dean of the Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee, has also been a great pioneer and promoter of the medical education of the Negro race.

At first, the Negro patient refused to put confidence in the physician of his own race, notwithstanding the closer intimacy of social contact. It was not until after he had demonstrated his competency to treat disease as well as his white competitor that he was able to win recognition among his own people. The colored physician is everywhere in open competition with the white practitioner, who never refuses to treat Negro patients, if allowed to assume the disdainful attitude of racial superiority. If the Negro doctor did not secure practically as good results in the treatment of disease as the white physician, he would soon find himself without patients.

According to the last census there were in the United States 3,077 Negro physicians and 478 Negro dentists. When we consider the professional needs of ten millions of Negroes, it will be seen that the quota is not over one fourth full. There is urgent need especially for an additional number of pharmacists and dentists. It must be said for the Negro physician that their membership more fully measures up to the full status of a professional class than that of any other profession among colored men. Every member of the profession must have a stated medical education based upon considerable academic preparation, sufficient to enable them to pass the rigid tests of State Boards in various parts of the country. The best regulated medical schools are now requiring at least two years of college training as a basis for entering upon the study of medicine. Under the stimulus of these higher standards the Negro medical profession will become more thoroughly equipped and proficient in the years to come.

These physicians maintain a national medical association which meets annually in different parts of the country and prepare and discuss papers bearing upon the various phases of their profession. There are under the control of Negro physicians a number of hospitals where are performed operations verging upon the limits of surgical skill. The profession has developed not a few physicians and surgeons whose ability has won recognition throughout their profession. A number of them have performed operations which have attracted wide attention and have contributed to leading journals discussions dealing with the various forms and phases of disease, as well as their medical and surgical treatment.

By reason of the stratum which the Negro occupies, the race is an easy prey to disease that affects the health of the whole nation. The germs of disease have no race prejudice. They do not even draw the line at social equality, but gnaw with equal avidity at the vitals of white and black alike, and pass with the greatest freedom of intercourse from the one to the other. One touch of disease makes the whole world kin, and also kind. The Negro physician comes into immediate contact with the masses of his race; he is the missionary of good health. His ministration is not only to his own race, but to the community and to the nation as a whole. The white plague seems to love the black victim. This disease must be stamped out by the nation through concerted action. The Negro physician is one of the most efficient agencies to render this national service. During the entire history of the race on this continent, there has been no more striking indication of its capacity for self-reclamation and of its ability to maintain a professional class on the basis of scientific efficiency than the rise and success of the Negro physician.

Kelly Miller

The Negro Soldier in the American Revolution

The facts as to the participation of Negroes in the American Revolution have received the attention of several writers. Yet not one of them has made a scientific presentation of the facts which they have discovered. These historians have failed to consider the bearing of the status of the free Negro during the colonial period, the meaning of the Revolution to the Negro, and what the service of the Negro soldiers first enlisted effected in changing the attitude of the people toward the blacks throughout the original thirteen colonies.

To a person who has lived in the nineteenth or twentieth century it would seem incredible that Negroes, the majority of whom were then slaves, should have been allowed to fight in the Continental Army. The layman here may forget that during the eighteenth century slavery was a patriarchal institution rather than the economic plantation system as it developed after the multiplication of mechanical appliances, which brought about the world-wide industrial revolution. During the eighteenth century a number of slaves brought closely into contact with their masters were gradually enlightened and later emancipated. Such freedmen, in the absence of any laws to the contrary, exercised political rights,¹ among which was that of bearing arms. Negroes served not only in the American Revolution, but in every war of consequence during the colonial period. There were masters who sent slaves to the front to do menial labor and to fight in the places of their owners. Then there were slaves who, finding it easier to take occasional chances with bullets than to bear the lash, ran away from their masters and served as privateers or enlisted as freemen.² The newspapers of the colonial period often mentioned these facts in their advertisements of fugitive slaves. In 1760 a master had considerable difficulty with a slave who escaped from New England into New Jersey, where he said he would enlist in the provincial service.³ Advertising for his mulatto servant, who was brought up in Rhode Island, James Richardson of Stonington said that the fugitive had served as a soldier the previous summer.⁴ A few free Negroes found their way into the colonial militia along with white soldiers. This passed, of course, not without some opposition, as in the case of Massachusetts. In 1656 that colony excluded Negroes and Indians from the militia, and according to Governor Bradstreet's report to the Board of Trade in 1680 and subsequent action taken by that colony in 1775 and 1776, it adhered to this policy.⁵

Favorable as this condition of Negroes during the colonial period seemed, the situation became still more desirable during the Revolution itself. This upheaval was social as well as political. Aristocracy was suddenly humiliated and the man in the common walks of life found himself in power, grappling with problems which he had long desired to solve. Sprung from the indentured servant poor white class, the new rulers had more sympathy for the man farthest down. The slaves, therefore, received more consideration. In the heat of the excitement of war the system lost almost all of its rigor, the slave codes in some cases falling into desuetude. The contest for liberty was in the mouths of some orators of the Revolution the cause of the blacks as well as that of the whites, and the natural rights of the former were openly discussed in urging the independence of the United States. When men like Laurens, Henry, Hamilton and Otis spoke for the rights of the American colonies, they were not silent on the duty of the American people toward their slaves.⁶ In 1774 a patriot in the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts spoke of the "propriety, that while we are attempting to free ourselves from slavery, our present embarrassments, and preserve ourselves from slavery, that we also take into consideration the state and circumstances of the Negro slaves in this province."⁷

When the Revolution came the Negro was actually in the army before the question of his enlistment could be raised by those who had not yet been won to the cause of universal freedom. Feeling the same patriotism which the white man experienced, the Negro bared his breast to the bullet and gave his life as a sacrifice for the liberty of his country. According to Bancroft, "the roll of the army of Cambridge had from its first formation borne the names of men of color." "Free Negroes," said he, "stood in the ranks by the side of white men. In the beginning of the war they had entered the provincial army; the first general order which was issued by Ward had required a return, among other things, of the complexion of the soldiers; and black men, like others, were retained in the service after the troops were adopted by the continent."⁸

Before the various officials had had time to decide whether or not the Negro should be enlisted, many had numbered themselves among the first to spill their blood in behalf of American liberty. Peter Salem had distinguished himself at Bunker Hill by killing Major Pitcairn,⁹ a number of other Negroes under the command of Major Samuel Lawrence had heroically imperilled their lives and rescued him when he had advanced so far beyond his troops that he was about to be surrounded and taken prisoner,¹⁰ and Salem Poor of Colonel Frye's regiment had acquitted himself with such honor in the battle of Charlestown that fourteen American officers commended him to the Continental Congress for his valor.¹¹ But great as were the services rendered by these patriots of color, the increase in the number of blacks in the Continental Army gave rise to vexatious questions. There were those who, influenced by the theories which had made the Revolution possible, hailed with joy the advent of the Negro in the role of the defender of his country, which they believed owed him freedom and opportunity. Some, having the idea that the Negro was a savage, too stupid to be employed in fighting the battles of freemen, seriously objected to his enlistment. Others were fearful of the result from setting the example of employing an uncivilized people to fight the British, who would then have an excuse not only for enlisting Negroes¹² but also the Indians. A still larger number felt that the question of arming the slaves would simply reduce itself to one of deciding whether or not the colonies should permit the British to beat them playing their own game.¹³

In the beginning, however, those who believed the Negroes should be excluded from the army triumphed. Massachusetts officially took a stand against the enlistment of slaves. The Committee of Safety, of which John Hancock and Joseph Ward were members, reported in May, 1775, to the Provincial Congress the opinion that as the contest then between Great Britain and her colonies respected the liberties and privileges of the latter, that the admission of any persons but freemen as soldiers would be inconsistent with the principles supported and would reflect dishonor on the colony.¹⁴ They urged that no slaves be admitted into the army under any consideration whatever. No action was taken. This was not seemingly directed at the enlistment of free Negroes; but it must have had some effect, for in July of the same year, when Washington took command of the army at Cambridge, there were issued from his headquarters to recruiting officers instructions prohibiting the enlistment of any Negro, any person not native of this country, unless such person had a wife and a family and was a settled resident.¹⁵

This matter became one of such concern that the officials of the Continental Army had to give it more serious consideration. Communications relative thereto directed to the Continental Congress provoked a debate in that body in September, 1775. On the occasion of drafting a letter to Washington, reported by a committee consisting of Lynch, Lee and Adams, to whom several of his communications had been referred, Rutledge, of South Carolina, moved that the commander-in-chief be instructed to discharge from the army all Negroes, whether slave or free.¹⁶ It seems that Rutledge had the support of the Southern delegates, but failed to secure a majority vote in favor of this radical proposition.

The matter was not yet settled, however. On the eighth of the following month there was held a council of war consisting of Washington, Ward, Lee, Putnam, Thomas, Spencer, Heath, Sullivan, Greene and Gates, to consider the question whether or not it would be advisable to enlist Negroes in the new army or "whether there be any distinction between such as are slaves and those who are free." It was unanimously agreed to reject all slaves and by a large majority to refuse Negroes altogether.¹⁷ Upon considering ten days later the question of devising a method of renovating the army, however, the question of enlisting Negroes came up again before a Committee of Conference. The leaders in this council were Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Lynch, the Deputy Governors of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and the Committee of Council of Massachusetts Bay. They were asked the question whether Negroes should be excluded from the new enlistment, especially such as were slaves. This council also agreed that Negroes should be rejected altogether.¹⁸ Accordingly, the general orders from Washington, dated November 12, 1775, declared that neither Negroes, boys unable to bear arms, nor old men unfit to endure fatigues of the campaign should be enlisted.

The men who had taken this position had acted blindly. They had failed to consider the various complications which might arise as a result of the refusal to admit Negroes to the army. What would the Negroes think when they saw their offering thrown away from the altar of their country? Were the Revolutionary fathers so stupid as to think that the British would adopt the same policy? They could not have believed that the situation could be so easily cleared. Before the Revolution was well on its way the delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress had already experienced certain fears as to the safety of Georgia and South Carolina. They believed that if one thousand regular troops should land in Georgia under a commander with adequate supplies and he should proclaim freedom to all loyal Negroes, twenty thousand of them would join the British in a fortnight. It was to them a matter of much concern that the Negroes of these provinces had such a wonderful art of communicating intelligence among themselves as to convey information several hundred miles in a week or in a fortnight.¹⁹ The colonists, too, could not ignore the bold attempt of Lord Dunmore, the dethroned governor of Virginia, who issued a proclamation of freedom to all slaves who would fight for the king, endeavored to raise a black regiment among them, and actually used a number of Negroes in the battle at Kemp's Landing, where they behaved like well-seasoned soldiers, pursuing and capturing one of the attacking companies.²⁰ Referring thereafter to Lord Dunmore as an arch-traitor who should be instantly crushed, George Washington said: "But that which renders the measure indispensably necessary is the Negroes, if he gets formidable numbers of them, will be tempted to join" him.

Subsequent developments showed that these misgivings were justified. In July, 1776, General Greene learned on Long Island that the British were about to organize in that vicinity a regiment of Negroes aggregating 200.²² Taking as a pretext the enrollment of Negroes in the Continental Army, Sir Henry Clinton proclaimed from Philipsburgh in 1779 that all Negroes taken in arms or upon any military duty should be purchased from the captors for the public service, and that every Negro who would desert the "Rebel Standard" should have full security to follow within the British lines any occupation which he might think proper.²³ In 1781 General Greene reported to Washington from North Carolina that the British there had undertaken to embody immediately two regiments of Negroes.²⁴ They were operating just as aggressively farther South. "It has been computed by good judges," says Ramsey, "that between the years 1775 and 1783 the State of South Carolina lost 25,000 Negroes,²⁵ that is, one fifth of all the slaves, and a little more than half as many as its entire white population. At the evacuation of Charleston 241 Negroes and their families were taken off to St. Lucia in one transport, the Scimitar."²⁶ Yet in Georgia it is believed that the loss of Negroes was much greater, probably three fourths or seven eighths of all in the State. There the British were more successful in organizing and making use of Negroes. One third of the 600 men by whom Fort Cornwallis was garrisoned at the siege of Augusta were Negroes. So effective were some of these Negroes trained by the British in Georgia that a corps of fugitive slaves calling themselves the "King of England's Soldiers," so harassed the people on both sides of the Savannah River, even after the Revolution, that it was feared that a general insurrection of the slaves there would follow as a result of this most dangerous and best disciplined band of marauders that ever infested its borders.²⁷

The leaders of the Revolution, therefore, quickly receded from their radical position of excluding Negroes from the army. Informed that the free Negroes who had served in the ranks in New England were sorely displeased at their exclusion from the service, and fearing that they might join the enemy, Washington departed, late in 1775, from the established policy of the staff and gave the recruiting officers leave to accept such Negroes, promising to lay the matter before the Continental Congress, which he did not doubt would approve it.²⁸ Upon the receipt of this communication the matter was referred to a committee composed of Wythe, Adams and Wilson, who recommended that free Negroes who had served faithfully in the army at Cambridge might be reenlisted but no others.²⁹ In taking action on such communications thereafter the Continental Congress followed the policy of leaving the matter to the various States, which were then jealously mindful of their rights.

Sane leaders generally approved the enlistment of black troops. General Thomas thought so well of the proposition that he wrote John Adams in 1775, expressing his surprise that any prejudice against it should exist.³⁰ Samuel Hopkins said in 1776 that something should be speedily done with respect to the slaves to prevent their turning against the Americans. He was of the opinion that the way to counteract the tendency of the Negroes to join the British was not to restrain them by force and severity but by public acts to set the slaves free and encourage them to labor and take arms in defense of the American cause.³¹ Interested in favor of the Negroes both by "the dictates of humanity and true policy," Hamilton urged that slaves be given their freedom with the swords to secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and influence those remaining in bondage by opening a door to their emancipation.³² General Greene emphatically urged that blacks be armed, believing that they would make good soldiers.³³ Thinking that the slaves might be put to a much better use than being given as a bounty to induce white men to enlist, James Madison suggested that the slaves be liberated and armed.³⁴ "It would certainly be consonant to the principles of liberty," said he, "which ought never to be lost sight of in a contest for liberty." John Laurens, of South Carolina, was among the first to see the wisdom of this plan, directed the attention of his coworkers to it, and when authorized by the Continental Congress, proceeded to his native State, wishing that he had the persuasive power of a Demosthenes to make his fellow citizens accept this proposition.³⁵ In 1779 Laurens said: "I would advance those who are unjustly deprived of the rights of mankind to a state which would be a proper gradation between abject slavery and perfect liberty, and besides I am persuaded that if I could obtain authority for the purpose, I would have a corps of such men trained, uniformly clad, equipped and ready in every respect to act at the opening of the next campaign."

All of the colonies thereafter tended to look more favorably upon the enlistment of colored troops. Free Negroes enlisted in Virginia and so many slaves deserted their masters for the army that the State enacted in 1777 a law providing that no Negro should be enlisted unless he had a certificate of freedom.³⁶ That commonwealth, however, soon took another step toward greater recognition of the rights of the Negroes who desired to be free to help maintain the honor of the State. With the promise of freedom for military service many slaves were sent to the army as substitutes for freemen. The effort of inhuman masters to force such Negroes back into slavery at the close of their service at the front actuated the liberal legislators of that commonwealth to pass the Act of Emancipation, proclaiming freedom to all Negroes who had thus enlisted and served their term faithfully, and empowered them to sue in forma pauperis, should they thereafter be unlawfully held in bondage.³⁷

In the course of time there arose an urgent need for the Negro in the army. The army reached the point when almost all sorts of soldiers were acceptable. In 1778 General Varnum induced General Washington to send certain officers from Valley Forge to Rhode Island to enlist a battalion of Negroes to fill the depleted ranks of that State.³⁸ Setting forth in the preamble that "history affords us frequent precedents of the wisest, freest and bravest nations having liberated their slaves and enlisted them as soldiers to fight in defense of their country," the Rhode Island Assembly resolved to raise a regiment of slaves, who were to be freed upon their enlistment, their owners to be paid by the State according to the valuation of a committee. Further light was thrown upon this action in the statement of Governor Cooke, who in reporting the action of the Assembly to Washington boasted that liberty was given to every effective slave to don the uniform and that upon his passing muster he became absolutely free and entitled to all the wages, bounties and encouragements given to any other soldier.³⁹

The State of New Hampshire enlisted Negroes and gave to those who served three years the same bounty offered others. This bounty was turned over to their masters as the price of the slaves in return for which their owners issued bills of sale and certificates of freedom.⁴⁰ In this way slavery practically passed out in New Hampshire. This affair did not proceed so smoothly as this in Massachusetts. In 1778 that legislature had a committee report in favor of raising a regiment of mulattoes and Negroes. This action was taken as a result upon receiving an urgent letter from Thomas Kench, a member of an artillery regiment serving on Castle Island. Kench referred to the fact that there were divers of Negroes in the battalions mixed with white men, but he thought that the blacks would have a better esprit de corps should they be organized in companies by themselves. But the feeling that slaves should not fight the battles of freemen and a confusion of the question of enlistment with that of emancipation for which Massachusetts was not then prepared,⁴¹ led to a heated debate in the Massachusetts Council and finally to blows in the coffee houses in lower Boston. In such an excited state of affairs no further action was taken. Finding recruiting difficult it is said that Connecticut undertook to raise a colored regiment⁴² and in 1781 New York, offering the usual land bounty which would go to the masters to purchase the slaves, promised freedom to all slaves who would enlist for the time of three years.⁴³ Maryland provided in 1780 that each unit of £16,000 of property should furnish one recruit who might be either a freeman or a slave, and in 1781 resolved to raise 750 Negroes to be incorporated with the other troops.⁴⁴

Farther South the enlistment of Negroes had met with obstacles. The best provision the Southern legislatures had been able to make was to provide in addition to the allotment of money and land that a person offering to fight for the country should have "one sound Negro"⁴⁵ or a "healthy sound Negro"⁴⁶ as the laws provided in Virginia and South Carolina respectively. Threatened with invasion in 1779, however, the Southern States were finally compelled to consider this matter more seriously.⁴⁷ The Continental Army had been called upon to cope with the situation but had no force available for service in those parts. The three battalions of North Carolina troops, then on duty in the South, consisted of drafts from the militia for nine months, which would expire before the end of the campaign. What were they to do then when this militia, which could not be uniformly kept up, should grow impatient with the service? Writing from the headquarters of the army at this time, Alexander Hamilton in discussing the advisability of this plan doubtless voiced the sentiment of the staff. He thought that Colonel Laurens's plan for raising three or four battalions of emancipated Negroes was the most rational one that could be adopted in that state of Southern affairs. Hamilton foresaw the opposition from prejudice and self-interest, but insisted that if the Americans did not make such a use of the Negroes, the British would.

The movement received further impetus when special envoys from South Carolina headed by Huger appeared before the Continental Congress on March 29, 1779, to impress upon that body the necessity of doing something to relieve the Southern colonies. South Carolina, they reported, was suffering from an exposed condition in that the number of slaves being larger than that of the whites, she was unable to effect anything for its defense with the natives, because of the large number necessary to remain at home to prevent insurrections among the Negroes and their desertion to the enemy. These representatives, therefore, suggested that there might be raised among the Negroes in that State a force "which would not only be formidable to the enemy from their numbers and the discipline of which they would readily admit but would also lessen the danger from revolts and desertions by detaching the most vigorous and enterprising from among the Negroes." At the same time the Committee expressed the opinion that a matter of such vital interest to the two States concerned should be referred to their legislative bodies to judge as to the expediency of taking this step, and that if these commonwealths found it satisfactory that the United States should defray the expenses.

Congress passed a resolution complying with these recommendations.⁴⁸ Laurens, the father of the movement, was made a lieutenant-colonel and he went immediately home to urge upon South Carolina the expediency of adopting this plan. There Laurens met determined opposition from the majority of the aristocrats who set themselves against "a measure of so threatening aspect and so offensive to that republican pride, which disdains to commit the defence of the country to servile bands or share with a color to which the idea of inferiority is inseparably connected, the profession of arms, and that approximation of condition which must exist between the regular soldier and the militiaman." It was to no purpose too that Laurens renewed his efforts at a later period. He mustered all of his energy to impress upon the Legislature the need of taking this action but finally found himself outvoted, having only reason on his side and "being opposed by a triple-headed monster that shed the baneful influence of avarice, prejudice, and pusillanimity in all our assemblies." "It was some consolation to me, however," said he, "to find that philosophy and truth had made some little progress since my last effort, as I obtained twice as many suffrages as before."

Hearing of the outcome, Washington wrote him that he was not at all astonished at it, as that spirit of freedom, which at the commencement of the Revolution would have sacrificed everything to the attainment of this object, had long since subsided, and every selfish passion had taken its place. "It is not the public but the private interest," said he, "which influences the generality of mankind, nor can Americans any longer boast an exception. Under these circumstances it would have been rather surprising if you had succeeded."⁴⁹ It is difficult, however, to determine exactly what Washington's attitude was. Two days after Hamilton wrote Jay about raising colored troops in South Carolina, the elder Laurens wrote Washington: "Had we arms for three thousand such black men as I could select in Carolina, I should have no doubt of success in driving the British out of Georgia, and subduing East Florida before the end of July." To this Washington answered: "The policy of our arming slaves is in my opinion a moot point, unless the enemy set the example. For, should we begin to form Battalions of them, I have not the smallest doubt, if the war is to be prosecuted, of their following us in it, and justifying the measure upon our own ground. The contest then must be who can arm fastest, and where are our arms? Besides I am not clear that a discrimination will not render slavery more irksome to those who remain in it. Most of the good and evil things in this life are judged by comparison; and I fear a comparison in this case will be productive of much discontent in those, who are held in servitude. But, as this is a subject that has never employed much of my thoughts, these are no more than the first crude Ideas that have struck me upon ye occasion."⁵⁰

What then resulted from the agitation and discussion? The reader naturally wants to know how many Negroes were actually engaged in the Continental Army. Here we find ourselves at sea. We have any amount of evidence that the number of Negroes engaged became considerable, but exact figures are for several reasons lacking. In the first place, free Negroes rarely served in separate battalions. They marched side by side with the white soldier, and in most cases, according to the War Department, even after making an extended research as to the names, organizations, and numbers, the results would be that little can be obtained from the records to show exactly what soldiers were white and what were colored.⁵¹ Moreover the first official efforts to keep the Negroes out of the army must not be regarded as having stopped such enlistments. As there was not any formal system of recruiting, black men continued to enlist "under various laws and sometimes under no law, and in defiance of law." The records of every one of the original thirteen States show that each had colored troops. A Hessian officer observed in 1777 that "the Negro can take the field instead of his master; and, therefore, no regiment is to be seen in which there are not negroes in abundance, and among them there are able-bodied, strong and brave fellows."⁵² "Here too," said he, "there are many families of free negroes who live in good homes, have property and live just like the rest of the inhabitants." In 1777 Alexander Scammell, Adjutant-General, made the following report as to the number and placement of the Negroes in the Continental Army:

Alexander Scammell, Adjutant-General.^52a

But this report neither included the Negro soldiers enlisted in several other States nor those that joined the army later. Other records show that Negroes served in as many as 18 brigades.

Some idea of the number of Negroes engaged may be obtained from the context of documents mentioning the action taken by States. Rhode Island we have observed undertook to raise a regiment of slaves. Governor Cooke said that the slaves found there were not many but that it was generally thought that 300 or more would enlist. Four companies of emancipated slaves were finally formed in that State at a cost of £10,437 7s 7d.⁵³ Most of the 629 slaves then found in New Hampshire availed themselves of the opportunity to gain their freedom by enlistment as did many of the 15,000 slaves in New York. Connecticut had free Negroes in its regiments and formed also a regiment of colored soldiers assigned first to Meigs' and afterward to Butler's command. Maryland resolved in 1781 to raise 750 Negroes to be incorporated with the other troops. Massachusetts thought of forming a separate battalion of Negroes and Indians but had no separate Negro regiment, the Negroes having been admitted into the other battalions, after 1778, to the extent that there were colored troops from 72 towns in that State. In view of these numerous facts it is safe to conclude that there were at least 4,000 Negro soldiers scattered throughout the Continental Army.

As to the value of the services rendered by the colored troops we have only one witness to the contrary. This was Sidney S. Rider. He tried to ridicule the black troops engaged in the Battle of Rhode Island and contended that only a few of them took part in the contest.⁵⁴ On the other hand we have two distinguished witnesses in their favor. The Marquis de Chastellux said that "at the passage to the ferry I met a detachment of the Rhode Island regiment, the same corps we had with us the last summer, but they have since been recruited and clothed. The greatest part of them are Negroes or Mulattoes; but they are strong, robust men, and those I have seen had a very good appearance."⁵⁵ Speaking of the behavior of troops, among whom Negroes under General Greene fought on this occasion, Lafayette said the following day, that the enemy repeated the attempt three times (tried to carry his position), and were as often repulsed with great bravery.⁵⁶ One hundred and forty-four of the soldiers thus engaged to roll back the lines of the enemy were, according to the Revolutionary records, Negroes.⁵⁷ Doctor Harris, a Revolutionary soldier, who took part in the Battle of Rhode Island, said of these Negroes: "Had they been unfaithful or even given away before the enemy all would have been lost. Three times in succession they were attacked with more desperate valor and fury by well disciplined and veteran troops, and three times did they successfully repel the assault and thus preserved our army from capture."⁵⁸ A detachment of these troops sacrificed themselves to the last man in defending Colonel Greene in 1781 when he was attacked at Point Bridge, New York. A Negro slave of South Carolina rendered Governor Rutledge such valuable service that by a special act of the legislature in 1783 his wife and children were enfranchised.⁵⁹

The valor of the Negro soldiers of the American Revolution has been highly praised by statesmen and historians. Writing to John Adams, a member of the Continental Congress, in 1775, to express his surprise at the prejudice against the colored troops in the South, General Thomas said: "We have some Negroes but I look on them in general equally serviceable with other men for fatigue, and in action many of them had proved themselves brave." Graydon in speaking of the Negro troops he saw in Glover's regiment at Marblehead, Massachusetts, said: "But even in this regiment (a fine one) there were a number of Negroes."⁶⁰ Referring to the battle of Monmouth, Bancroft said: "Nor may history omit to record that, of the 'revolutionary patriots' who on that day perilled life for their country, more than seven hundred black men fought side by side with the white."⁶¹ According to Lecky, "the Negroes proved excellent soldiers: in a hard fought battle that secured the retreat of Sullivan they three times drove back a large body of Hessians."⁶² We need no better evidence of the effective service of the Negro soldier than the manner in which the best people of Georgia honored Austin Dabney,⁶³ a mulatto boy who took a conspicuous part in many skirmishes with the British and Tories in Georgia. While fighting under Colonel Elijah Clarke he was severely wounded by a bullet which in passing through his thigh made him a cripple for life. He received a pension from the United States and was by an act of the legislature of Georgia given a tract of land. He improved his opportunities, acquired other property, lived on terms of equality with some of his white neighbors, had the respect and confidence of high officials, and died mourned by all.

W. B. Hartgrove

Freedom and Slavery in Appalachian America

To understand the problem of harmonizing freedom and slavery in Appalachian America we must keep in mind two different stocks coming in some cases from the same mother country and subject here to the same government. Why they differed so widely was due to their peculiar ideals formed prior to their emigration from Europe and to their environment in the New World. To the Tidewater came a class whose character and purposes, although not altogether alike, easily enabled them to develop into an aristocratic class. All of them were trying to lighten the burdens of life. In this section favored with fertile soil, mild climate, navigable streams and good harbors facilitating direct trade with Europe, the conservative, easy-going, wealth-seeking, exploiting adventurers finally fell back on the institution of slavery which furnished the basis for a large plantation system of seeming principalities. In the course of time too there arose in the few towns of the coast a number of prosperous business men whose bearing was equally as aristocratic as that of the masters of plantations.¹ These elements constituted the rustic nobility which lorded it over the unfortunate settlers whom the plantation system forced to go into the interior to take up land. Eliminating thus an enterprising middle class, the colonists tended to become more aristocratic near the shore.

In this congenial atmosphere the eastern people were content to dwell. the East had the West in mind and said much about its inexhaustible resources, but with the exception of obtaining there grants of land nothing definite toward the conquest of this section was done because of the handicap of slavery which precluded the possibility of a rapid expansion of the plantation group in the slave States. Separated thus by high ranges of mountains which prevented the unification of the interests of the sections, the West was left for conquest by a hardy race of European dissenters who were capable of a more rapid growth.² these were the Germans and Scotch-Irish with a sprinkling of Huguenots, Quakers and poor whites who had served their time as indentured servants in the east.³ The unsettled condition of Europe during its devastating wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries caused many of foreign stocks to seek homes in America where they hoped to realize political liberty and religious freedom. Many of these Germans first settled in the mountainous district of Pennsylvania and Maryland and then migrated later to the lower part of the Shenandoah Valley, while the Scotch-Irish took possession of the upper part of that section. Thereafter the Shenandoah Valley became a thoroughfare for a continuous movement of these immigrants toward the south into the uplands and mountains of the Carolinas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.⁴

Among the Germans were Mennonites, Lutherans, and Moravians, all of whom believed in individual freedom, the divine right of secular power, and personal responsibility.⁵ The strongest stock among these immigrants, however, were the Scotch-Irish, "a God-fearing, Sabbath-keeping, covenant-adhering, liberty-loving, and tyrant-hating race," which had formed its ideals under the influence of philosophy of John Calvin, John Knox, Andrew Melville, and George Buchanan. By these thinkers they had been taught to emphasize equality, freedom of conscience, and political liberty. These stocks differed somewhat from each other, but they were equally attached to practical religion, homely virtues, and democratic institutions.⁷ Being a kind and beneficent class with a tenacity for the habits and customs of their fathers, they proved to be a valuable contribution to the American stock. As they had no riches every man was to be just what he could make himself. Equality and brotherly love became their dominant traits. Common feeling and similarity of ideals made them one people whose chief characteristic was individualism.⁸ Differing thus so widely from the easterners they were regarded by the aristocrats as "Men of new blood" and "Wild Irish," who formed a barrier over which "none ventured to leap and would venture to settle among."⁹ No aristocrat figuring conspicuously in the society of the East, where slavery made men socially unequal, could feel comfortable on the frontier, where freedom from competition with such labor prevented the development of caste.

The natural endowment of the West was so different from that of the East that the former did not attract the people who settled in the Tidewater. The mountaineers were in the midst of natural meadows, steep hills, narrow valleys of hilly soil, and inexhaustible forests. In the East tobacco and corn were the staple commodities. Cattle and hog raising became profitable west of the mountains, while various other employments which did not require so much vacant land were more popular near the sea. Besides, when the dwellers near the coast sought the cheap labor which the slave furnished the mountaineers encouraged the influx of freemen. It is not strange then that we have no record of an early flourishing slave plantation beyond the mountains. Kercheval gives an account of a settlement by slaves and overseers on the large Carter grant situated on the west side of the Shenandoah, but it seems that the settlement did not prosper as such, for it soon passed into the hands of the Burwells and the Pages.¹⁰

The rise of slavery in the Tidewater section, however, established the going of those settlers in the direction of government for the people. The East began with indentured servants but soon found the system of slavery more profitable. It was not long before the blacks constituted the masses of the laboring population,¹¹ while on the expiration of their term of service the indentured servants went west and helped to democratize the frontier. Caste too was secured by the peculiar land tenure of the East. The king and the proprietors granted land for small sums on feudal terms. The grantees in their turn settled these holdings in fee tail on the oldest son in accordance with the law of primogeniture. This produced a class described by Jefferson who said: "There were then aristocrats, half-breeds, pretenders, a solid independent yeomanry, looking askance at those above, yet not venturing to jostle them, and last and lowest, a seculum of beings called overseers, the most abject, degraded and unprincipled race, always cap in hand to the Dons who employed them for furnishing material for the exercise of their price."¹²

In the course of colonial development the people of the mountains were usually referred to as frontiersmen dwelling in the West. This "West" was for a number of years known as the region beyond the Blue Ridge Mountains and later beyond the Alleghenies. A more satisfactory dividing line, however, is the historical line of demarcation between the East and West which moved toward the mountains in the proportion that the western section became connected with the East and indoctrinated by its proslavery propagandists. In none of these parts, however, not even far south, were the eastern people able to bring the frontiersmen altogether around to their way of thinking. Their ideals and environment caused them to have differing opinions as to the extent, character, and foundations of local self-government, differing conceptions of the meaning of representative institutions, differing ideas of the magnitude of governmental power over the individual, and differing theories of the relations of church and State. The East having accepted caste as the basis of its society naturally adopted the policy of government by a favorite minority, the West inclined more and more toward democracy. The latter considered representatives only those who had been elected as such by a majority of the people of the district in which they lived; the former believed in a more restricted electorate, and the representation of districts and interests, rather than that of numbers.¹³ Furthermore, almost from the founding of the colonies there was court party consisting of the rich planters and favorites composing the coterie of royal officials generally opposed by a country party of men who, either denied certain privileges or unaccustomed to participation in the affairs of privileged classes, felt that the interests of the lowly were different. As the frontier moved westward the line of cleavage tended to become identical with that between the privileged classes and the small farmers, between the lowlanders and the uplanders, between capital and labor, and finally between the East and West.

The frontiersmen did not long delay in translating some of their political theories into action. The aristocratic East could not do things to suit the mountaineers who were struggling to get the government nearer to them. At times, therefore, their endeavors to abolish government for the people resulted in violent frontier uprisings like that of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia and the War of Regulation in North Carolina. In all of these cases the cause was practically the same. These pioneers had observed with jealous eye the policy which bestowed all political honors on the descendants of a few wealthy families living upon the tide or along the banks of the larger streams. They were, therefore, inclined to advance with quick pace toward revolution.¹⁴ On finding such leaders as James Otis, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, the frontiersmen instituted such a movement in behalf of freedom that it resulted in the Revolutionary War.¹⁵ These patriots' advocacy of freedom, too, was not half-hearted. When they demanded liberty for the colonists they spoke also for the slaves, so emphasizing the necessity for abolition that observers from afar thought that the institution would of itself soon pass away.¹⁶

In the reorganization of the governments necessitated by the overthrow of the British, however, the frontiersmen were unfortunate in that they lacked constructive leadership adequate to having their ideas incorporated into the new constitutions. Availing themselves of their opportunity, the aristocrats of the coast fortified themselves in their advantageous position by establishing State governments based on the representation of interests, the restriction of suffrage, and the ineligibility of the poor to office.¹⁷ Moreover, efforts were made even to continue in a different form the Established Church against which the dissenting frontiersmen had fought for more than a century. In the other Atlantic States where such distinctions were not made in framing their constitutions, the conservatives resorted to other schemes to keep the power in the hands of the rich planters near the sea. When the Appalachian Americans awoke to the situation then they were against a stone wall. The so-called rights of man were subjected to restrictions which in our day could not exist. The right to hold office and to vote were not dependent upon manhood qualifications but on a white skin, religious opinions, the payment of taxes, and wealth. In South Carolina a person desiring to vote must believe in the existence of a God, in a future state of reward and punishment, and have a freehold of fifty acres of land. In Virginia the right of suffrage was restricted to freeholders possessing one hundred acres of land. Senators in North Carolina had to own three hundred acres of land; representatives in South Carolina were required to have a 500 acre freehold and 10 Negroes; and in Georgia 250 acres and support the Protestant religion.¹⁸ In all of these slave States, suffering from such unpopular government, the mountaineers developed into a reform party persistently demanding that the sense of the people be taken on the question of calling together their representatives to remove certain defects from the constitutions. It was the contest between the aristocrats and the progressive westerner. The aristocrats' idea of government was developed from the "English Scion--the liberty of kings, lords, and commons, with different grades of society acting independently of all foreign powers." The ideals of the westerners were principally those of the Scotch-Irish, working for "civil liberty in fee simple, and an open road to civil honors, secured to the poorest and feeblest members of society."¹⁹

The eastern planters, of course, regarded this as an attack on their system and fearlessly denounced these rebellious wild men of the hills. In taking this position, these conservatives brought down upon their heads all of the ire that the frontiersmen had felt for the British prior to the American Revolution. The easterners were regarded in the mountains as a party bent upon establishing in this country a régime equally as oppressive as the British government. The frontiersmen saw in slavery the cause of the whole trouble. They, therefore, hated the institution and endeavored more than ever to keep their section open to free labor. They hated the slave as such, not as a man. On the early southern frontier there was more prejudice against the slaveholder than against the Negro.²⁰ There was the feeling that this was not a country for a laboring class so undeveloped as the African slaves, then being brought to these shores to serve as a basis for a government differing radically from that in quest of which the frontiersmen had left their homes in Europe.

This struggle reached its climax in different States at various periods. In Maryland the contest differed somewhat from that of other Southern States because of the contiguity of that commonwealth with Pennsylvania, which early set such examples of abolition and democratic government that a slave State near by could not go so far in fortifying an aristocratic governing class. In Virginia the situation was much more critical than elsewhere. Unlike the other Atlantic States, which wisely provided roads and canals to unify the diverse interests of the sections, that commonwealth left the trans-Alleghany district to continue in its own way as a center of insurgency from which war was waged against the established order of things.²¹ In most States, however, the contest was decided by the invention of the cotton gin and other mechanical appliances which, in effecting an industrial revolution throughout the world, gave rise to the plantation system found profitable to supply the increasing demand for cotton. In the course of the subsequent expansion of slavery, many of the uplanders and mountaineers were gradually won to the support of that institution. Realizing gradually a community of interests with the eastern planters, their ill-feeling against them tended to diminish. Abolition societies which had once flourished among the whites of the uplands tended to decline and by 1840 there were practically no abolitionists in the South living east of the Appalachian Mountains.²²

Virginia, which showed signs of discord longer than the other Atlantic States, furnishes us a good example of how it worked out. The reform party of the West finally forced the call of a convention in 1829, hoping in vain to crush the aristocracy. Defeated in this first battle with the conservatives, they secured the call of the Reform Convention in 1850 only to find that two thirds of the State had become permanently attached to the cause of maintaining slavery.²³ Samuel McDowell Moore, of Rockbridge County in the Valley, said in the Convention of 1829-30 that slaves should be free to enjoy their natural rights,²⁴ but a generation later the people of that section would not have justified such an utterance in behalf of freedom. The uplanders of South Carolina were early satisfied with such changes as were made in the apportionment of representation in 1808, and in the qualifications of voters in 1810.²⁵ Thereafter Calhoun's party, proceeding on the theory of government by a concurrent majority, vanquished what few liberal-minded men remained, and then proceeded to force their policy on the whole country.

In the Appalachian Mountains, however, the settlers were loath to follow the fortunes of the ardent pro-slavery element. Actual abolition was never popular in western Virginia, but the love of the people of that section for freedom kept them estranged from the slaveholding districts of the State, which by 1850 had completely committed themselves to the pro-slavery propaganda. In the Convention of 1829-30 Upshur said there existed in a great portion of the West (of Virginia) a rooted antipathy to the slave.²⁶ John Randolph was alarmed at the fanatical spirit on the subject of slavery, which was growing up in Virginia. Some of this sentiment continued in the mountains. The highlanders, therefore, found themselves involved in a continuous embroglio because they were not moved by reactionary influences which were unifying the South for its bold effort to make slavery a national institution.²⁷

The indoctrination of the backwoodsmen of North Carolina in the tenets of slavery was effected without much difficulty because of less impediment in the natural barriers, but a small proportion of the inhabitants of the State residing in the mountainous districts continued anti-slavery. There was an unusually strong anti-slavery element in Davie, Davidson, Granville and Guilford counties. The efforts of this liberal group, too, were not long in taking organized form. While there were several local organizations operating in various parts, the efforts of the anti-slavery people centered around the North Carolina Manumission Society. It had over forty branches at one time, besides several associations of women, all extending into seven or eight of the most populous counties of the State. This society denounced the importation and exportation of slaves, and favored providing for manumissions, legalizing slave contracts for the purchase of freedom, and enacting a law that at a certain age all persons should be born free.²⁸ That these reformers had considerable influence is evidenced by the fact that in 1826 a member of the manumission society was elected to the State Senate. In 1824 and 1826 two thousand slaves were freed in North Carolina.²⁹ Among the distinguished men who at times supported this movement in various ways were Hinton Rowan Helper, Benjamin S. Hedrick, Daniel R. Goodloe, Eli W. Caruthers, and Lunsford Lane, a colored orator and lecturer of considerable ability.³⁰ They constituted a hopeless minority, however, for the liberal element saw their hopes completely blasted in the triumph of the slave party in the Convention of 1835, which made everything subservient to the institution of slavery.

In the mountains of Kentucky and Tennessee conditions were a little more encouraging, especially between 1817 and 1830. The anti-slavery work in Kentucky seemed to owe its beginning to certain "Emancipating Baptists." Early in the history of that State six Baptist preachers, Carter Tarrant, David Darrow, John Sutton, Donald Holmes, Jacob Gregg, and George Smith, began an anti-slavery campaign, maintaining that there should be no fellowship with slaveholders.³¹ They were unable to effect much, however, because of the fact that they had no extensive organization through which to extend their efforts. Every church remained free to decide for itself and even in Northern States the Baptists later winked at slavery. More effective than these efforts of the Baptists was the work of the Scotch-Irish. Led by David Rice, a minister of the Presbyterian Church, the anti-slavery element tried to exclude slavery from the State when framing its first constitution in the Convention of 1792.³² Another effort thus to amend the fundamental law was made at the session of the legislature of 1797-98, and had it not been for the excitement aroused by the Alien and Sedition Laws, the bill probably would have passed.³³

Many successful efforts were made through the anti-slavery bodies. The society known as "Friends of Humanity" was organized in Kentucky in 1807. It had a constitution signed by eleven preachers and thirteen laymen. The organization was in existence as late as 1813. The records of the abolitionists show that there was another such society near Frankfort between 1809 and 1823.³⁴ Birney then appeared in the State and gave his influence to the cause with a view to promoting the exportation of Negroes to Liberia.³⁵ A number of citizens also memorialized Congress to colonize the Negroes on the public lands in the West.³⁶ In the later twenties an effort was made to unite the endeavors of many wealthy and influential persons who were then interested in promoting abolition. Lacking a vigorous and forceful leader, they appealed to Henry Clay, who refused.³⁷ They fought on, however, for years to come. A contributor to the Western Luminary said, in 1830, that the people of Kentucky were finding slavery a burden.³⁸ Evidently a good many of them had come to this conclusion, for a bill providing for emancipation introduced in the Legislature was postponed indefinitely by a vote of 18 to 11.³⁹ So favorable were conditions in Kentucky at this time that it was said that Tennessee was watching Kentucky with the expectation of following her lead should the latter become a free State as was then expected.

The main factor in promoting the work in Tennessee was, as in Kentucky, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian stock. They opposed slavery in word and in deed, purchasing and setting free a number of colored men. Among these liberal westerners was organized the "Manumission Society of Tennessee," represented for years in the American Convention of Abolition Societies by Benjamin Lundy.⁴⁰ The Tennessee organization once had twenty branches and a membership of six hundred.⁴¹ Among its promoters were Charles Osborn, Elihu Swain, John Underhill, Jesse Willis, John Cannady, John Swain, David Maulsby, John Rankin, Jesse Lockhart, and John Morgan.⁴² They advocated at first immediate and unconditional emancipation, but soon seeing that the realization of this policy was impossible, they receded from this advanced position and memorialized their representatives to provide for gradual emancipation, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the prevention of the separation of families, the prohibition of the interstate slave trade, the restriction of slavery, the general improvement of colored people through church and school, and especially the establishment among them of the right of marriage.⁴³ To procure the abolition of slavery by argument, other persons of this section organized another body, known as the "Moral Religious Manumission Society of West Tennessee."⁴⁴ It once had a large membership and tended to increase and spread the agitation in behalf of abolition.

In view of these favorable tendencies, it was thought up to 1830 that Tennessee, following the lead of Kentucky, would become a free State.⁴⁵ But just as the expansion of slavery into the interior of the Atlantic States attached those districts to the fortunes of the slaveholding class, it happened in some cases in the mountains which to some extent became indoctrinated by the teaching of the defenders of slavery. Then the ardent slavery debate in Congress and the bold agitation, like that of the immediatists led by William Lloyd Garrison, alienated the support which some mountaineers had willingly given the cause. Abolition in these States, therefore, began to weaken and rapidly declined during the thirties.⁴⁶ Because of a heterogeneous membership, these organizations tended to develop into other societies representing differing ideas of anti-slavery factions which had at times made it impossible for them to cooperate effectively in carrying out any plan. The slaveholders who had been members formed branches of the American Colonization Society, while the radical element fell back upon organizing branches of the Underground Railroad to cooperate with those of their number who, seeing that it was impossible to attain their end in the Southern mountains, had moved into the Northwest Territory to colonize the freedmen and aid the escape of slaves.⁴⁷ Among these workers who had thus changed their base of operation were not only such noted men as Joshua Coffin, Benjamin Lundy, and James G. Birney, but less distinguished workers like John Rankin, of Ripley; James Gilliland, of Red Oak; Jesse Lockhart, of Russellville; Robert Dobbins, of Sardinia; Samuel Crothers, of Greenfield; Hugh L. Fullerton, of Chillicothe, and William Dickey, of Ross or Fayette County, Ohio. There were other southern abolitionists who settled and established stations of the Underground Railroad In Bond, Putnam, and Bureau Counties, Illinois.⁴⁸ The Underground Railroad was thus enabled to extend into the heart of the South by way of the Cumberland Mountains. Over this Ohio and Kentucky route, culminating chiefly in Cleveland, Sandusky, and Detroit, more fugitives found their way to freedom than through any other avenue.⁴⁹ The limestone caves were of much assistance to them. The operation of the system extended through Tennessee into northern Georgia and Alabama, following the Appalachian highland as it juts like a peninsula into the South. Dillingham, John Brown, and Harriet Tubman used these routes.

Let us consider, then, the attitude of these mountaineers toward slaves. All of them were not abolitionists. Some slavery existed among them. The attack on the institution, then, in these parts was not altogether opposition to an institution foreign to the mountaineers. The frontiersmen hated slavery, hated the slave as such, but, as we have observed above, hated the eastern planter worse than they hated the slave. As there was a scarcity of slaves in that country they generally dwelt at home with their masters. Slavery among these liberal people, therefore, continued patriarchal and so desirous were they that the institution should remain such that they favored the admission of the State of Missouri as a slave State,⁵⁰ not to promote slavery but to expand it that each master, having a smaller number of Negroes, might keep them in close and helpful contact. Consistently with this policy many of the frontier Baptists, Scotch-Irish and Methodists continued to emphasize the education of the blacks as the correlative of emancipation. They urged the masters to give their servants all proper advantages for acquiring knowledge of their duty both to man and to God. In large towns slaves were permitted to acquire the rudiments of education and in some of them free persons of color had well-regulated schools.⁵¹

Two noteworthy efforts to educate Negroes were put forth in these parts. A number of persons united in 1825 to found an institution for the education of eight or ten Negro slaves with their families, to be operated under the direction of the "Emancipating Labor Society of the State of Kentucky." About the same time Frances Wright was endeavoring to establish an institution on the same order to improve the free blacks and mulattoes in West Tennessee. It seems that this movement had the support of a goodly number of persons, including George Fowler, and, it was said, Lafayette, who had always been regarded as a friend of emancipation. According to a letter from a clergyman of South Carolina, the first slave for this institution went from the York district of that State. Exactly what these enterprises were, however, it is difficult to determine. They were not well supported and soon passed from public notice. Some have said that the Tennessee project was a money-making scheme for the proprietors, and that the Negroes taught there were in reality slaves. Others have defended the work as a philanthropic effort so characteristic of the friends of freedom in Appalachian America.⁵²

The people of Eastern Tennessee were largely in favor of Negro education. Around Maryville and Knoxville were found a considerable number of white persons who were thus interested in the uplift of the belated race. Well might such efforts be expected in Maryville, for the school of theology at this place had gradually become so radical that according to the Maryville Intelligencer half of the students by 1841 declared their adherence to the cause of abolition.⁵³ Consequently, they hoped not only to see such doctrines triumph within the walls of that institution, but were endeavoring to enlighten the Negroes of that community to prepare them for the enjoyment of life as citizens in their own or some other country.⁵⁴

Just as the people of Maryville had expressed themselves through The Intelligencer, so did those of Knoxville find a spokesman in The Presbyterian Witness. Excoriating those who had for centuries been finding excuses for keeping the slaves in heathenism, the editor of this publication said that there was not a solitary argument that might be urged in favor of teaching a white man that might not be as properly urged in favor of enlightening a man of color. "If one has a soul that will never die," said he, "so has the other. Has one susceptibilities of improvement, mentally, socially, and morally? So has the other. Is one bound by the laws of God to improve the talents he has received from the Creator's hands? So is the other. Is one embraced in the commands search the scriptures? So is the other."⁵⁵ He maintained that unless masters could lawfully degrade their slaves to the condition of beasts, they were just as much bound to teach them to read the Bible as to teach any other class of their population.

From a group in Kentucky came another helpful movement. Desiring to train up white men who would eventually be able to do a work which public sentiment then prevented the anti-slavery minority from carrying on, the liberal element of Kentucky, under the leadership of John G. Fee and his coworkers, established Berea College. Believing in the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God, this institution incorporated into its charter the bold declaration that "God hath made of one blood all nations that dwell upon the face of the earth." This profession was not really put to a test until after the Civil War, when the institution courageously met the issue by accepting as students some colored soldiers who were returning home wearing their uniforms.⁵⁶ The State has since prohibited the co-education of the races.

With so many sympathizers with the oppressed in the back country, the South had much difficulty in holding the mountaineers in line to force upon the whole nation their policies, mainly determined by their desire for the continuation of slavery. Many of the mountaineers accordingly deserted the South in its opposition to the tariff and internal improvements, and when that section saw that it had failed in economic competition with the North, and realized that it had to leave the Union soon or never, the mountaineers who had become commercially attached to the North and West boldly adhered to these sections to maintain the Union. The highlanders of North Carolina were finally reduced to secession with great difficulty; Eastern Tennessee had to yield, but kept the State almost divided between the two causes; timely dominated by Unionists with the support of troops, Kentucky stood firm; and to continue attached to the Federal Government forty-eight western counties of Virginia severed their connection with the essentially slaveholding district and formed the loyal State of West Virginia.

In the mountainous region the public mind has been largely that of people who have developed on free soil. They have always differed from the dwellers in the district near the sea not only in their attitude toward slavery but in the policy they have followed in dealing with the blacks since the Civil War. One can observe even to-day such a difference in the atmosphere of the two sections, that in passing from the tidewater to the mountains it seems like going from one country into another. There is still in the back country, of course, much of that lawlessness which shames the South, but crime in that section is not peculiarly the persecution of the Negro. Almost any one considered undesirable is dealt with unceremoniously. In Appalachian America the races still maintain a sort of social contact. White and black men work side by side, visit each other in their homes, and often attend the same church to listen with delight to the Word spoken by either a colored or white preacher.

C. G. Woodson

Documents

Eighteenth Century Slaves as Advertised by Their Masters

In some respects the eighteenth century slave was better off than the Negro of today. As a rule no Negro can now get his name into the leading newspapers unless he commits a heinous crime. At that time, however, masters in offering slaves for sale and advertising fugitives unconsciously spoke of their virtues as well as their shortcomings, that the public might be fully informed as to the character of the blacks. Through these advertisements, therefore, we can get at the very life of the Negro when slavery was still of the patriarchal sort and can thus contrast his then favorable condition with the wretchedness of the institution after it assumed its economic aspect in the nineteenth century. We observe that the eighteenth century slave was rapidly taking over modern civilization in the West Indies and in the thirteen colonies on the American continent. The blacks were becoming useful and skilled laborers, acquiring modern languages, learning to read and write, entering a few of the professions, exercising the rights of citizens, and climbing the social ladder to the extent of moving on a plane of equality with the poor whites.

To emphasize various facts these advertisements have been grouped under different headings, but each throws light on more than one phase of the life of the eighteenth century slave. The compiler will be criticised here for publishing in full many advertisements which contain repetitions of the same phraseology. The plan is deemed wise in this case, however, because of the additional value the complete document must have. The words to which special attention is directed appear in his own capitals.

Reviews of Books

Notes

"The Creed of the Old South," by Basil Gildersleeve, has come from the Johns Hopkins Press. This is a presentation of the Lost Cause to enlarge the general appreciation of southern ideals.

From the same press comes also "The Constitutional Doctrines of Justice Harlan," by Floyd B. Clark. The author gives an interesting survey of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, tracing the constitutional doctrine of the distinguished jurist.

The Neale Publishing Company has brought out "The Aftermath of the Civil War in Arkansas," by Powell Clayton. The author was governor of the State from 1868 to 1871. Not desiring to take radical ground, he endeavors to be moderate in sketching the work of different factions.

From the press of Funk Wagnalls we have "Samuel Coleridge-Taylor; Musician, His Life and Letters," by W. C. Berwick Sayres.

Dean B. G. Brawley, of Morehouse College, contributed to the January number of "The South Atlantic Quarterly" an article entitled "Pre-Raphaelitism and Its Literary Relations."

C. F. Heartman, New York, has published the poems of Jupiter Hammon, a slave born in Long Island, New York, about 1720. Nothing is known of Hammon's early life. It is probable that he was a preacher. His first poem was published December 25, 1760. They do not show any striking literary merit but give evidence of the mental development of the slave of the eighteenth century.

Dr. B. F. Riley, the noted Birmingham preacher and social worker, is planning to bring out a biography of Booker T. Washington. Dr. Riley is a white man and is the author of "The White Man's Burden," an historical and sociological work written in behalf of the rights of all humanity irrespective of class or condition.

Dr. C. G. Woodson has been asked to write for the revised edition of the "Encyclopaedia Americana" the article on "Negro Education."

The Cambridge University Press has published "The Northern Bantu," by J. Roscoe. This is a short history of some central African tribes of the Uganda Protectorate.

J. A. Winter contributed to the July number of "The South African Journal of Science" a paper entitled "The Mental and Moral Capabilities of the Natives, Especially of Sekukuniland."

In "Folk Lore," September 30, 1915, appeared "Some Algerian Superstitions noted among the Shawai Berbers of the Aurès Mountains and their Nomad Neighbors."

Murray has published in London "A History of the Gold Coast and Ashanti" in two volumes, by W. W. Claridge. The introduction is written by the Governor of the Gold Coast, Sir Hugh Clifford. It covers the period from the earliest times to the commencement of the present century. The volume commences with an account of the Akan tribes and their existence in two main branches--Fanti and Ashanti. Beginning with the early voyages, the author gives an extensive sketch of European discovery and settlement.

"A History of South Africa from the Earliest Days to the Union," by W. C. Scully, has appeared under the imprint of Longmans, Green and Company.

Fisher Unwin has published "South West Africa," by W. Eveleigh. The volume gives a brief account of the history, resources and possibilities of that country.

How the Public Received The Journal of Negro History

Colored Freemen as Slave Owners in Virginia¹

Among the quaint old seventeenth century statutes of Virginia may be found the following significant enactment:

No negro or Indian though baptized and enjoyned their own freedome shall be capable of any purchase of Christians but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation.²

"Christians" in this act means persons of the white race. Indented servitude was the condition and status of no small part of the white population of Virginia when this law was enacted. While it is not a part of our purpose in this article to show that white servants were ever bound in servitude to colored masters, the inference from this prohibition upon the property rights of the free Negroes is that colored freemen had at least attempted to acquire white or "Christian" servants. In a revision of the law seventy-eight years later it was deemed necessary to retain the prohibition and to annex the provision that if any free Negro or mulatto "shall nevertheless presume to purchase a Christian white servant, such servant shall immediately become free."³

If we see in these laws nothing more than precautionary measures against a possible reversal of the usual order of white master and black servant to that of black master and white servant, they are nevertheless significant as commentaries on the extent of the remaining unimpaired property rights of black freemen. Only in the light of these prohibitions do we see the full significance of the last clause of the act which reads: "but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation."

With no evidence beyond this explicit admission in the written law of the right of free Negroes to own servants and slaves of their own race it could scarcely be doubted that there were in the colony colored men known to the framers of this law who held to service persons of their own race and color. But when the court records are opened and the strange story of the free Negro Anthony Johnson and his slave John Casor is read and understood we are forced to a realization of the impartial attitude of the law toward black masters not only in its outward expression but also in its actual application. The story of the relation of these two black settlers in the young colony is worth relating in the quaint language of the times word for word as it appears in the manuscript records.

The deposition of Capt. Samll. Goldsmyth taken in open court 8th of March [16]54 sayeth that being att ye house of Anth. Johnson Negro about ye beginning of November last to receive a Hogsd of tobac, a negro called Jno. Casor came to this depo[nen]t & told him yt hee came into Virginia for seaven or eight years of Indenture; yt hee had demanded his freedome of Antho. Johnson his mayster & further sd yt hee had kept him his serv[ant] seaven years longer than hee should or ought; and desired that this Depont would see yt hee might have noe wronge; whereupon your depont demanded of Anth. Johnson his Indenture. the sd Johnson answered hee never saw any. The negro Jno. Casor replyed when hee came in he had an Indenture. Anth. Johnson sd hee had ye Negro for his life, but Mr. Robert & George Parker sd they knewe that ye sd Negro had an Indenture in one Mr. S[andys?] hand on ye other side of ye Baye. Further sd Mr. Robert Parker & his Brother George sd (if the sd. Anth. Johnson did not let ye negro go free) the said negro Jno Casor would recover most of his Cows from him ye sd Johnson. Then Anth. Johnson (as this dep't. did suppose) was in a great feare.... Anth. Johnsons sonne in Law, his wife & his own two sonnes persuaded the old negro Anth. Johnson to sett the sd. Jno. Casor free ... more sth not.

Samll Goldsmyth.

Eight March Anno 1654.⁴

John Casor was not, however, permitted to enjoy long his freedom. Johnson decided to petition the county court to determine whether John Casor was a slave for life or a servant "for seven years of indenture." The court record of the suit is as follows:

Whereas complaint was this daye made to ye court by ye humble peticion of Anth. Johnson Negro ag[ains]t Mr. Robert Parker that hee detayneth one John Casor a Negro the plaintiffs Serv[an]t under pretense yt the sd Jno. Casor is a freeman the court seriously considering & maturely weighing ye premises doe fynd that ye sd Mr. Robert Parker most unrightly keepeth ye sd Negro John Casor from his r[igh]t mayster Anth. Johnson as it appeareth by ye Deposition of Capt. Samll Gold smith & many probable circumstances. be it therefore ye Judgement of ye court & ordered that ye sd Jno. Casor negro, shall forthwith bee turned into ye service of his sd master Anthony Johnson and that the sd Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suite and execution.⁵

In thus sustaining the claim of Anth. Johnson to the perpetual service of John Casor the court gave judicial sanction to the right of Negroes to own slaves of their own race. Indeed no earlier record, to our knowledge, has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime. Additional gleanings from the records show that this black slavemaster was a respected citizen of wealth and one of the very earliest Negro arrivals upon this continent, if, indeed, he was not one of the first twenty brought in on the Dutch man-of-war in 1619. Every doubt of the correctness of this assertion should be banished by a perusal of the somewhat detailed evidence upon which the conclusion is based.

The discovery of the fact that Anthony Johnson was a slaveowner led to a further examination of court records and land patents for additional information concerning him. In the court records of Northampton County in 1653 it was found recorded that "Anth. Johnson negro hath this daye made his compl[ain]t to ye court that John Johnson, Senr. most unrightly detayneth a pattent of his for 450 acres of land (which pattent sd. Jno. Johnson negro claymeth & boldly affirmeth to bee his land."⁶

A search in the early land patents of the State revealed a grant by the authorities of the State of two hundred and fifty acres of land in Northampton County to Anthony Johnson a Negro. The grant was made as "head rights" upon the importation by the Negro of five persons into the colony.⁷ Still pursuing the record of this black freeman, who was able to maintain a slave, the following was discovered in the records of the county court of Northampton:

Upon ye humble pet[ition] of Anth. Johnson negro & Mary his wife & their Information to ye Court that they have been Inhabitants in Virginia above thirty years, consideration being taken of their hard labor and honored service performed by the petitioners in this Country for ye obtayneing of their Livelyhood and ye great Llosse they have sustained by an unfortunate fire with their present charge to provide for. Be it therefore fitt and ordered that from the day of the debate hearof during their natural lives the sd Mary Johnson & two daughters of Anthony Johnson Negro be disingaged and freed from payment of Taxes and leavyes in Northampton County for public use.⁸

Subtracting thirty years from 1652, the date of this order of the court, it appeared that this Negro and his wife were in Virginia in 1622. Examination of a census taken in Virginia after the Indian massacre of 1622 and called "The Lists of Living and Dead in Virginia" revealed the fact that there were only four Negroes in the colony beside the surviving nineteen out of the twenty that came in in 1619. The name of one of these four was Mary and the name of one of the first twenty was Anthony.⁹ It may with good reason be surmised, if it cannot be proved, that Mary became the wife of Anthony and that in the course of the next thirty years they acquired the surname Johnson as well as a large tract of land and a slave by the name of John Casor.

The Existence of Black Masters after Colonial Times

Some readers may be inclined to regard the case of the slave John Casor as altogether exceptional and peculiar to an early period in the growth of slavery before custom had fully crystallized into law. It is true that similar examples are hard to find in the seventeenth century when the free Negroes were few in number. But if from the paucity of examples it is argued that such a case was a freak of the seventeenth century and that nothing similar could have occurred after slavery became a settled and much regulated institution, the answer is that slave-owning by free Negroes was so common in the period of the Commonwealth as to pass unnoticed and without criticism by those who consciously recorded events of the times. For abundant proof of the relation of black master and black slave we must refer again to court records and legislative petitions from which events and incidents were not omitted because of their common occurrence. Deeds of sale and transfer of slaves to free Negroes, wills of free Negroes providing for a future disposition of slaves, and records of suits for freedom against free Negroes, all relate too well the story of how black masters owned slaves of their own race, to require additional proof.

The following record of the court of Henrico County under date of 1795 is an example of what is to be found in the records of any of the older counties of Virginia:

Know all men by these presents that I, James Radford of the County of Henrico for and in consideration of the sum of thirty-three pounds current money of Virginia to me in hand paid by George Radford a black freeman of the city of Richmond hath bargained and sold unto George Radford one negro woman aggy, to have and to hold the said negro slave aggy unto the said George Radford his heirs and assigns forever.

James Radford (seal)¹⁰

Judith Angus, a well-to-do free woman of color of Petersburg, was the owner of two household slaves. Before her death in 1832 she made a will which provided that the two slave girls should continue in the service of the family until they earned money enough to enable them to leave the State and thus secure their freedom according to law.¹¹

From the records of the Hustings Court of Richmond may be gotten the account of a suit for freedom begun by Sarah, a slave, against Mary Quickly, a free black woman of the city. It is worthy of note that no claim was made by the plaintiff that Mary Quickly, being a black woman, had no right to own a slave. The grounds for the suit had no relation whatever to the race or color of the defendant, Mary Quickly.¹²

The only evidence at hand of the kind of relations that existed between black masters and their chattel slaves is supplied by the word of old men who remember events of the last two decades before the war. All that have been heard to speak of the matter are unanimously of the opinion that black masters had difficulty in subordinating and controlling their slaves. William Mundin, a mulatto barber of Richmond, seventy-five years of age, when interviewed, but still of trustworthy memory and character, is authority for the statement that Reuben West, a comparatively wealthy free colored barber of Richmond, went into the slave market and purchased a slave cook, but because of the spirit of insubordination manifested by the slave woman toward him and his family he disposed of her by sale. James H. Hill, another free colored man to whose statements a good degree of credence is due, corroborates in many points this story about Reuben West as a slaveowner. His statement is that Reuben West was a free colored barber of some wealth and the owner at one time of two slaves, one of whom was a barber working in his master's shop on Main Street. So much of these statements has been confirmed by reference to tax books and court records that the entire story may be accepted as true.

A Truly Benevolent Slavery

The type of black master represented by Reuben West or Anthony Johnson must be distinguished from the colored slaveowner who kept his slaves in bondage, not for their service, but wholly in consideration of the slaves. A very considerable majority of black masters, unlike the examples above cited, were easily the most benevolent known to history. It was owing to a drastic state policy toward freedmen that this unusually benevolent type of slavery arose.

During the last quarter of the eighteenth century slaveowners in Virginia possessed unrestricted powers to bestow freedom upon their slaves. Under such circumstances free blacks became instrumental in procuring freedom for many of their less fortunate kinsmen. They frequently advanced for a slave friend the price at which his white master held him for sale and, having liberated him, trusted him to refund the price of his freedom. A free member of a colored family would purchase whenever able his slave relatives. The following deed of sale is a striking example of such a purchase:

Know all men of these presents that I David A. Jones of Amelia County of the one part have for and in consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars granted unto Frank Gromes a black man of the other part a negro woman named Patience and two children by name Phil and Betsy to have and to hold the above named negroes to the only proper use, behalf and benefit of him and his heirs forever.

David Jones (seal)¹³

Phil Cooper, of Gloucester County, in 1828 was the chattel slave of his free wife. Janette Wood of Richmond was manumitted in 1795 by her mother, "natural love" being the only consideration named in the legal instrument. John Sabb, of Richmond, purchased in 1801 his aged father-in-law Julius and for the nominal consideration of five shillings executed a deed of manumission.¹⁴

Purchases of this kind before 1806 were usually followed immediately by manumission of the slave. Scattered through the deeds and wills of Virginia County records in the quarter century ending with 1806 are to be found numerous documents of which the following is an example:

To all whom these presents may come know ye, that I Peter Hawkins a free black man of the city of Richmond having purchased my wife Rose, a slave about twenty-two years of age and by her have had a child called Mary now about 18 mo. old, for the love I bear toward my wife and child have thought proper to emancipate them and for the further consideration of five shillings to me in hand paid ... I emancipate and set free the said Rose and Mary and relinquish all my right ... as slaves to the said Rose and Mary.

Peter Hawkins (seal)¹⁵

Indeed the kindness of free Negroes toward their friends and relatives seeking freedom afforded such an accessible avenue to liberty that those vigilant white citizens who desired to preserve the institution of slavery deemed it necessary to put obstructions in the way. A law which required any slave manumitted after May 1, 1806 to leave the State within the space of twelve months was passed in 1806 and remained in force until the war rendered it obsolete. Forfeiture of freedom was the penalty for refusal to accept banishment. From this act dates the beginning of this benevolent type of slavery. Free Negroes continued to purchase their relatives but held them as slaves, refusing to decree their banishment by executing a deed or will of manumission.

A pathetic example of this kind was the case of Negro Daniel Webster of Prince William County. At the age of sixty when an illness forced him to the conclusion that life was short, he sent a petition to the legislature saying that he had thus far avoided the evil consequences of the law of 1806 by retaining his family in nominal slavery but that then he faced the alternative of manumitting his family to see it disrupted and banished or of holding his slave family together till his death, when its members like other property belonging to his estate would be sold as slaves to masters of a different type. He begged that exception be made to the law of 1806 in the case of his wife and children so that he might feel at liberty to manumit them.¹⁶

A similar petition to the Legislature in 1839 by Ermana, a slave woman, stated that her husband and owner had been a free man of color, that he had died intestate and that she, her children and her property had escheated to the literary fund. Scores of similar petitions to the Legislature for special acts of relief tell the story of how black men and women who owned members of their families neglected too long to remove from them the status of property.

A case more amusing than pathetic was that of Betsy Fuller, a free Negro huckstress of Norfolk, and her slave husband. The colored man's legal status was that of property belonging to his wife. Upon the approach of the Civil War he was blatant in his advocacy of Southern views, thus evincing his indifference to emancipation.¹⁷

Feeble efforts were made by the legislature for a score of years before the war to limit the power of free Negroes to acquire slaves for profit. By an act of 1832 free Negroes were declared incapable of purchasing or otherwise acquiring permanent ownership, except by descent, of any slaves other than husband, wife, and children. Contracts for the sale of a slave to a black man were to be regarded as void.¹⁸ But even this attempt at limitation was passed by a bare majority of one.¹⁹ Within three years of the beginning of the War the law was revised to read: "No free negro shall be capable of acquiring, except by descent, any slave." ²⁰ In the opinion of a judge who passed upon this law, its object was "to keep slaves as far as possible under the control of white men only, and to prevent free negroes from holding persons of their own race in personal subjection to themselves. Perhaps also it is intended to evince the distinctive superiority of the white race." ²¹

Whatever may have been their object these acts are of more significance because of the story they tell than they ever were in accomplishing the emancipation of slaves from masters of the black race. The period of the existence of the black master was conterminous with the period of the existence of slavery. By the same immortal proclamation which broke the shackles of slaves serving white masters were rent asunder, also, the bonds which held slaves to masters of their own race and color.

John H. Russell, Ph.D.,
(Professor of Political Science, Whitman College, Walla Walla, Washington.)

The Fugitives of the Pearl

The traditional history of the Negro in America, during nearly three hundred years, is one in which the elements of pathos, humor and tragedy are thoroughly mixed and in which the experiences encountered are of a kind to grip the hearts and consciences of men of every race and every creed. Just as colonial Americans resented their enforced enlistment for maritime service under the flag of King George, so it may be assumed that with equal vigor did the little band of Africans object to a forced expatriation from their native wilds, even though, as it happened, they were destined to be, in part, the builders of a great and prosperous nation and the progenitors of a strong and forward-looking race.

There are few incidents that distinguish the bondage of the descendants of that first boat load of involuntary African explorers, that evince, in so large a degree, the elements alluded to, as do those which cluster about the story of the "Edmondson Children." There were altogether fourteen sons and daughters of Paul and Amelia who passed as devoutly pious and respectable old folks. Paul was a freeman who hired his time in the city. Amelia was a slave. Their little cabin, a few miles out of the city of Washington proper, was so neat and orderly that it was regarded as a model for masters and slaves alike for many miles around. They were thus permitted to live together by the owners of Amelia, who realized how much more valuable the children would be as a marketable group after some years of such care and attention as the mother would be sure to bestow. Milly, as she was familiarly called, reared the children, tilled the garden, and, being especially handy with the needle, turned off many a job of sewing for the family of her mistress. She was entirely ignorant so far as books go, but Paul read the Bible to her when visiting his loved ones on Sunday and what he explained she remembered and treasured up for comfort in her moments of despair.

The older boys and girls were hired out in prominent families in the city and by their intelligence, orderly conduct and other evidences of good breeding came to be known far and wide as "The Edmondson Children," the phrase being taken as descriptive of all that was excellent and desirable in a slave. The one incurable grief of these humble parents was that in bringing children into the world they were helping to perpetuate the institution of slavery. The fear that any day might bring to them the cruel pangs of separation and the terrible knowledge that their loved ones had been condemned to the horrors of the auction block was with them always a constant shadow, darkening each waking moment. More and ever more, they were torn with anxiety for the future of the children and so they threw themselves with increasing faith and dependence upon the Master of all, and no visit of the children was so hurried or full of other matters but that a few moments were reserved for prayer. At their departure, one after another was clasped to the mother's breast and always this earnest admonition followed them, "Be good children and the blessed Lord will take care of you." Louisa and Joseph, the two youngest, were still at home when there occurred events in which several of their older brothers and sisters took so prominent a part and which are here to be related.

The incidents of this narrative which are reflected in its title are contemporary with and in a measure resultant from the revolution out of which came the establishment of the first French Republic and the expulsion of Louis-Philippe in 1848. The citizens of the United States were felicitating their brothers across the water upon the achievement of so desirable a result. In Washington especially, the event was joyously acclaimed. Public meetings were held at which representatives of the people in both houses of Congress spoke encouragingly of the recent advance toward universal liberty. The city was regally adorned with flags and bunting and illumination and music everywhere. The White House was elaborately decorated in honor of the event and its general observance, scheduled for April 13. A procession of national dignitaries, local organizations and the civic authorities, accompanied by several bands of music and throngs of citizens, made its way to the open square (now Lafayette Park) opposite the White House. Speeches were in order. Among the addresses which aroused the large crowd to enthusiasm were those of Senator Patterson of Tennessee and Senator Foote of Mississippi.¹ The former likened the Tree of Liberty to the great cotton-wood tree of his section, whose seed is blown far and wide, while the latter spoke eloquently of the universal emancipation of man and the approaching recognition in all countries of the great principles of equality and brotherhood.

Here and there huddled unobtrusively in groups on the fringe of the crowd were numbers of slaves. The enthusiasm of the throng, frequently manifested in shouts of approval, was discreetly reflected in the suppressed excitement of the slaves, who whispered among themselves concerning the curious and incredible expressions they had heard. Could it possibly be that these splendid truths, this forecast of universal liberty, might include them too? A few of the more intelligent, among whom was Samuel Edmondson, drew together to discuss the event and were not long concluding that the authority they had listened to could not be questioned and that they should at once contribute their share towards so desirable a consummation.

Coincident with this celebration there had arrived at Washington the schooner Pearl with Daniel Drayton² as super-cargo, Captain Sayres, owner, and a young man, Chester English, as sailor and cook. Drayton witnessed the great demonstration near the White House and, as might have been expected, the sentiment that seemed to have won all Washington found a natural and active response, for when the news of the purpose of his visit was communicated by the woman for whose deliverance he had agreed to make the trip, he was appealed to on behalf of others and consented to take all who should be aboard by ten o'clock that night.

The Edmondson boys actively promoted the scheme and, rightly in so just a cause, abused the privileges which their integrity and unusual intelligence had won for them. The news was passed to an aggregate of 77 persons, all of whom faithfully appeared and were safely stowed away between decks before midnight. Samuel sought his sisters Emily and Mary at their places of employment and acquainted them with his purpose. They at first hesitated on account of the necessity of leaving without seeing their mother, but were soon persuaded that it was an opportunity they should not be willing to neglect.

The Pearl cast free from her moorings shortly after midnight Saturday and silently, with no sign of life aboard, save running lights fore and aft, crept out to mid-stream and made a course towards the lower Potomac. The condition that obtained on Sunday morning after the discovery of the absence of so many slaves from their usual duties may be accurately described as approaching a panic. Had the evidences of a dreadful plague become as suddenly manifest, the community could not have experienced a greater sense of horror or for the moment been more thoroughly paralyzed. A hundred or more families were affected through the action of these seventy and seven slaves and the stern proofs of their flight were many times multiplied.

The action of the masters in this emergency is eloquent testimony that the fine orations of two days before concerning the spread of liberty and universal brotherhood had been nothing more than so many meaningless conversations. When confronted on Sunday morning with the fact that theirs and their neighbors' slaves, in so great numbers, had disappeared during the night, the realization of the difference between popular enthusiasm for a sentiment and a real sacrifice for a principle was borne in upon them and they found that while they enjoyed the former they were not at all ready to espouse the latter.

As a result the day was but little advanced when an excited cavalcade of the masters, after scouring every portion of the city, broke for the open country to the North, designing to cover each of the roads leading from the city. They had not reached the District limits, however, when they whirled about and galloped furiously in the opposite direction and never checked rein, until panting and foaming, their horses were brought up at the wharves. A vessel was chartered and steamed away almost immediately on its mission to capture the party of runaway slaves.

Fate, which occasionally plays such strange and cruel tricks in the lives of men, presented in this instance a Machiavellian combination of opposing forces, that was disastrous to the enterprise of the fugitives. Judson Diggs,³ one of their own people, a man who in all reason might have been expected to sympathize with their effort, took upon himself the role of Judas. Judson was a drayman and had hauled some packages to the wharf for one of the slaves, who was without funds to pay the charge, and although he was solemnly promised that the money should be sent him, he proceeded at once to wreak vengeance through a betrayal of the entire party.

Even so, it would seem they might have had an excellent chance to escape, but for the adverse winds and tides which set against them towards the close of Sunday. They were approaching the open waters of the Bay and the little vessel was already pitching and tossing as from the lashing of a gale. The captain decided that it was the part of prudence to remain within the more quiet waters of the Potomac for the night and make the open sea by light of day. Under these circumstances they put into Cornfield Harbor and here in the quiet hours before midnight the pursuing masters found them.

It is difficult to realize the consternation felt by the fugitives when the noise of tramping feet and the voices of angry men broke upon their ears. They seemed to realize at once that they were lost and many gave themselves up to shrieks and tears until wise counsel prevailed. Captain Drayton and his mate were immediately the storm center of the infuriated masters, many of whom were loud in the demand that summary vengeance be wreaked upon them and that these two at least should be hung from the yard arm. It was easily possible that this demand might have been acceded to, had not a diversion been caused by some of the others who were anxious to locate the slaves.

To satisfy themselves as to their safety they proceeded to break open the hatchways when, so suddenly as to create something of a panic, Richard Edmondson bounded on deck and in a voice of suppressed excitement exclaimed, "Do yourselves no harm, gentlemen, for we are all here!" Richard was young, muscular and of splendid proportions and seeing him thus by the poor light of smoky lanterns, with flashing eyes and swinging arms, leaping into their midst with an unknown number of others following, some of the masters experienced a feeling of terror, and dropping their guns, scurried away to safety among the dark shadows of the vessel.

By the time the others reached the deck, the shock of Richard's strange appearance had somewhat died away and when Samuel, who was one of the last, appeared, a sharp blow which, but for a sudden lurch of the vessel, would have laid him low fell on one side of his head. Drayton and Sayres,⁴ who were witnesses of this incident, were horrified to think that, having not so much as a penknife with which to defend themselves, these poor creatures might be brutally murdered, and, notwithstanding the serious aspect of their own fortunes,⁵ protested vigorously against such violence. But for this timely interference, there is but little doubt that some of these poor people would have been cruelly if not fatally injured.

The true condition of affairs, however, was speedily recognized and seeing there was nothing to fear in the way of resistance, order was soon evolved out of the general chaos and then came the decision to make an early start on the return trip. Among the slaves, the reaction from a feeling of hope and joyous anticipation of the delights of freedom was terrible indeed. The bitter gall and wormwood of failure was the sad and gloomy portion of these seventy and seven souls. Among them then there were but few who were not completely crushed, their minds a seething torrent, in which regret, misery and despair made battle for the mastery. Children weeping and wailing clung to the skirts of their elders. The women with shrieks, groans and tearful lamentations deplored their sad fate, while the men, securely chained wrist and wrist together, stood with heads dropped forward, too dazed and wretched for aught but to turn their stony gaze within upon the wild anguish of their aching hearts.

Their arrival at Washington was signalized by a demonstration vastly different but little short of that which had taken place a few days before. The wharves were alive with an eager and excited throng all intent upon a view of the miserable folks who had been guilty of so ungrateful an effort. So disorderly was the mob that the debarkation was for some time delayed. This was finally accomplished through the strenuous efforts of the entire constabulary of the city.

The utmost watchfulness and care was, however, unavailing to prevent assaults. The most serious instance of this kind was the act of an Irish ruffian, who so far forgot the traditions and sufferings of his own people as to cast himself upon Drayton with a huge dirk and cut off a piece of his ear.⁶ For a few moments all the horrors incident to riot and bloodshed were in evidence. The air was filled with the screams of terrorized women and children and the curses and threats of vengeful men. The whole was a struggling, swaying mass, which for a season had been swept beyond itself by brutish passion.

Numerous arrests were made and in due course the march to the jail was begun with the accompanying crowd hurling taunts and jeers at every step. While they were proceeding thus, an onlooker said to Emily, "Aren't you ashamed to run away and make all this trouble for everybody?" To this she replied, "No sir, we are not and if we had to go through it again, we'd do the same thing."

The controversy that was precipitated through the attempted escape, between the advance guard of abolition and the defenders of slavery, was most bitter and violent. The storm broke furiously about the offices of The National Era. In Congress, Mr. Giddings of Ohio moved an "inquiry into the cause of the detention at the District jail of persons merely for attempting to vindicate their inalienable rights." Senator Hale of New Hampshire moved a resolution of "inquiry into the necessity for additional laws for the protection of property in the District."⁷ A committee consisting of such notable characters as the Channings, Samuel May, Samuel Howe, Richard Hildreth, Samuel Sewell and Robert Morris, Jr., was formed at Boston to furnish aid and defense for Drayton. These men were empowered to employ counsel and collect money. Horace Mann, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase and Fessenden of Maine volunteered to serve gratuitously.⁸

Other philanthropists directed their attention to the liberation of these slaves. The Edmondsons were owned by an estate. The administrator, who was approached by John Brent,⁹ the husband of the oldest sister of the children, agreed to give their friends an opportunity to effect their purchase, as he was unwilling to run any further risk by keeping them. He failed to keep this promise and when Mr. Brent went to see them the next day he was informed that they had been sold to Bruin and Hill, the slave-dealers of Alexandria and Baltimore, and had been sent to the former city. A cash sum of $4,500 had been accepted for the six children and when taxed with the failure to keep his promise, he simply said he was unwilling to take any further risk with them. Bruin also refused to listen to any proposals, saying he had long had his eyes on the family and could get twice what he paid for them in the New Orleans market.

They were first taken to the slave pens at Alexandria, where they remained nearly a month. Here the girls were required to do the washing for a dozen or more men with the assistance of their brothers and were at length put aboard a steamboat and taken to Baltimore where they remained three weeks. Through the exertions of friends at Washington, $900 was given towards their freedom by a grandson of John Jacob Astor, and this was appropriated towards the ransom of Richard, as his wife and children were said to be ill and suffering at Washington. The money arrived on the morning they were to sail for New Orleans but they had all been put aboard the brig Union, which was ready to sail, and the trader refused to allow Richard to be taken off. The voyage to New Orleans covered a period of seven days, during which much discomfort and suffering were experienced. There were eleven women in the party, all of whom were forced to live in one small apartment, and the men numbering thirty-five or forty, in another not much larger. Most of them being unaccustomed to travel by water were afflicted with all the horrors of sea-sickness. Emily's suffering from this cause was most pitiable and so serious was her condition at one time that the boys feared she would die. The brothers, however, as in all circumstances, were very kind and would tenderly carry her out on deck whenever the heat in their close quarters became too oppressive and would buy little comforts that were in their reach and minister in all possible ways to her relief.

In due course they arrived at New Orleans and were immediately initiated into the horrors of a Georgia pen. The girls were required to spend much time in the show room, where purchasers came to examine them carefully with a view to buying them. On one occasion a youthful dandy had applied for a young person whom he wished to install as housekeeper and the trader decided that Emily would just about meet the requirements, but when he called her she was found to be indulging in a fit of weeping. The youth, therefore, refused to consider her, saying that he had no room for the snuffles in his house. The loss of this transaction so incensed the trader, who said he had been offered $1,500 for the proper person, that he slapped Emily's face and threatened to send her to the calaboose, if he found her crying again.

Here also the boys had their hair closely cropped and their clothes, which were of good material, exchanged for suits of blue-jeans. Appearing thus, they were daily exhibited on the porch for sale. Richard, who was in reality free, as his purchase money was on deposit in Baltimore, was allowed to come and go at will and early bent his energies toward the discovery of their elder brother Hamilton,¹⁰ who was living somewhere in the city. His quest was soon rewarded with success and one day to the delight of his sisters and brothers he brought him to see them. Hamilton had never seen Emily, as he had been sold away from his parents before her birth, but his joy, though mingled with sorrow, could not be suppressed. He was soon busy with plans for the increase of their meager comforts. Finding upon inquiry that Hamilton was thoroughly responsible, the trader consented to the girls' spending their nights at their brother's home. He was also at pains to secure good homes for the unfortunate group and was successful in inducing a wealthy Englishman to purchase his brother Samuel.

In consequence of an epidemic of yellow fever, which increased in virulence from day to day, the traders decided to bring the slaves North without further delay and so a few days later they were reembarked on the brig Union with Baltimore as their destination. Samuel was the only one of the brothers and sisters left behind. As he was pleasently situated with humane and kindly owners, the parting from him was not so sad as otherwise it might have been. Sixteen days were required for the trip and upon their arrival they were again placed in the same old prison. Richard was almost immediately freed and, in company with a Mr. Bigelow, of Washington, was enabled to rejoin his wife and children.

Paul Edmondson visited his children at the Baltimore jail in company with their sister.¹¹ He had been encouraged to hope that in some way a fund might be raised for their ransom, but it was not until some weeks later, after they had been returned through Washington and again placed in their old slave quarters at Alexandria, that an understanding as to terms could be had with Bruin and Hill. They finally agreed to accept $2,250 if the amount was raised within a certain time and gave Paul a signed statement of the terms, which might be used as his credentials in the matter of soliciting assistance. Armed with this document, he arrived at New York and found his way to the Anti-Slavery office, where the price demanded was considered so exorbitant that but little encouragement was given him. From here he went to the home of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, where he arrived foot-sore and weary. After ringing the bell, he sat upon the doorstep weeping. Here Mr. Beecher found him and, taking him into his library, inquired his story.

As a result there followed a public meeting in Mr. Beecher's Brooklyn church, at which he pleaded passionately as if for his own children, while other clergymen spoke with equal interest and feeling. The money was raised, an agent appointed to consummate the ransom of the children, and Paul, with a sense of happiness and relief to which he had long been a stranger, started with the good news on his way homeward.

Meanwhile the girls were torn with doubt and anxiety as to the success of their father's mission. Several weeks had elapsed and the traders were again getting together a coffle of slaves for shipment to the slave market, this time to that in South Carolina. The girls, too, had been ordered to be in readiness and the evening before had broken down in tears when Bruin's young daughter, who was a favorite with the girls, sought them out and pleaded with them not to go. Emily told her to persuade her father not to send them and so she did, while clinging around his neck until he had not the heart to refuse.

A day or two later, while looking from their window, they caught sight of their father and ran into his arms shouting and crying. So great was their joy that they did not notice their father's companion, a Mr. Chaplin, the agent appointed at the New York meeting to take charge of the details of their ransom. These were soon completed, their free papers signed and the money paid over. Bruin, too, it is said, was pleased with the joy and happiness in evidence on every hand and upon bidding the girls good-bye gave each a five dollar gold piece.

Upon their arrival at Washington they were taken in a carriage to their sister's home, whence the news of their deliverance seemed to have penetrated to every corner of the neighborhood with the result that it was far into the night before the last greetings and congratulations had been received and they were permitted, in the seclusion of the family circle, to kneel with their parents in prayer and thanksgiving.¹²

In the meantime what had become of Samuel? When Hamilton Edmondson was seeking to locate his sisters and brothers in desirable homes in New Orleans, he first saw Mr. Horace Cammack, a prosperous cotton merchant, whose friendship and respect he had long since won and who, upon the further representation of Samuel's proficiency as a butler, agreed to purchase him. In this wise, it came to pass that Samuel was duly installed as upper houseman in the Cammack home. Although situated more happily than most slaves he was fully determined, as ever, that the world should one day know and respect him as a free man, and patiently waited and watched for the opportunity to accomplish his purpose.

Meanwhile another element had thrust itself into the equation and must be reckoned with in the solution of the problem of his after life. It happened that Mrs. Cammack, a lady of much beauty and refinement of manner, had in her employ as maid, a young girl of not more than eighteen years named Delia Taylor. She was tall, graceful and winsome, of the clear mulatto type, and through long service in close contact with her mistress, had acquired that refinement and culture, which elicit the admiration and delight of those in like station and inspire a feeling much akin to reverence in those more lowly placed. With some difficulty Samuel approached her with a proposal and, although at first refused, finally won her as his bride.

Matters now moved along on pleasant lines for Samuel and Delia during several months, but with the advent of Master Tom, Cammack's son who had been away to college, there was encountered an element of discord, which was for a while to destroy their happiness. This young gentleman took a violent dislike to Samuel from the very first meal the latter served him. They finally clashed and Samuel had to run away. His master, however, sent his would-be-oppressor with the rest of the family to the country and ordered Samuel to return home. This he did and immediately entered upon his duties.

The year following, Mr. Cammack went to Europe on cotton business and not long after his arrival was killed in a violent storm while yachting with friends off the coast of Norway. After this event, affairs in the life of Samuel gradually approached a crisis, while in the meantime an additional responsibility had been added to himself and Delia in the person of a little boy, whom they named David.

Master Tom, being now the head of the house, left little room for doubt as to the authority he had inherited and proceeded to evince the same in no uncertain way, especially towards those against whom he held a grievance. To get rid of Samuel was first in order. This was the easiest possible matter, for there was not a wealthy family on the visiting list of the Cammacks who would not, even at some sacrifice, make a place for him in their service. Through the close intimacy of Mrs. Cammack and Mrs. Slidell, the latter was given the refusal and Samuel told to go around and see his future Mistress. To her he expressed a desire to serve in her employ but he was now determined more than ever that his next master should be himself. Accordingly he proceeded directly to a friend from whom he purchased a set of free-papers, which had been made out and sold him by a white man. These required that he should start immediately up the river but upon a full consideration of the matter he decided that the risks were too great in that direction. The problem was a serious one. An error of judgment, a step in the wrong direction, would not only be a serious, if not fatal blow to his hopes, but might lead to untold hardships to others most dear to him.

Somewhat irresolutely he turned his steps towards the river front, gazing with longing eyes at the stretch of water, the many ships in harbor, some entering, others steaming away or being towed out to open water. The thought that in this direction, beyond the wide seas, lay his refuge and ultimate hope came to him with so much force as to cause him to reel like one on whom a severe blow had been dealt. He stood for some time, seemingly bewildered, in the din and noise of the wharf, noting abstractedly the many bales of cotton, as truck after truck-load was rushed aboard an outward bound steamer. The bales seemed to fascinate him completely. A stevedore yelled at him to move out of the way and aroused him into action, but in that interval an idea which seemed to offer a possible means of escape had been evolved. He would impersonate a merchant from the West Indies in search of a missing bale of goods and endeavor to get passage to the Islands, where he well knew the flag of free England was abundant guarantee for his protection. The main thought seemed a happy one, for he soon found a merchantman that was to clear that night for Jamaica. It was not a passenger vessel, but the captain, a good-natured Briton, said that he had an extra bunk in the cabin and if the gentleman did not mind roughing it, he would be glad to have his company. The first step towards his freedom was successfully taken, the money paid down for the passage and with the injunction from the captain to be aboard by nine o'clock he returned ashore.

Only a few hours now remained to him, before a long, perhaps a lasting separation from his dear wife and baby, and thinking to pass these with them he hurried thence by the most unfrequented route, but had hardly crossed the threshold when Delia, weeping bitterly, implored him to make good his escape, as Master Tom had already sent the officers to look for him. With a last, fond embrace and a tear, which, falling upon that cradled babe, meant present sorrow, but no less future hope, the husband and father made his way under the friendly shadows of the night, back to the waiting ship.

When the officer from the custom house came aboard to inspect the ship's papers Samuel was resting, apparently without concern, in the upper bunk of the little cabin.

The captain seated himself at the center table, opposite the officer, and spread the papers before him. "Heigho, I see you have a passenger this trip," and then read from the sheet: "Samuel Edmondson, Jamaica, W.I., thirty years old. General Merchant."

"Yes," said the captain as he concluded. "Mr. Edmondson asked for passage at the last moment and as he was alone and we had a bunk not in service, I thought I'd take him along. He has a valuable bale of goods astray, probably at Jamaica, and is anxious to return and look it up."

"Well I hope he may find it. Where is he? let's have a look at him."

"Mr. Edmondson, will you come this way a moment?" called the captain.

As may be imagined the subject of this conversation had been listening intently and now when it was demanded that he present himself, he murmured a fervent "God help me" and jumped nimbly to the deck.

"This is my passenger," said the Captain, and to Samuel he said: "The customs officer simply wished to see you, Mr. Edmondson."

Samuel bowed and stood at ease, resting one hand upon the table and in this attitude without the quiver of an eyelash or the flinching of a muscle, bore the searching look of the officer, which rested first upon his face and then upon his hand. The flush of excitement still mounting his cheek and brow, gave a bronzed swarthiness and decidedly un-American cast to his rich brown color, while his features, clean-cut and but slightly of the Negro type, with hands well shaped and nails quite clean, were a combination of conditions rarely met in the average slave. The first glance of suspicion was almost immediately lost to view in the smile of friendly greeting with which the officer's hand was extended. "I hope you may recover your goods," were the words he said and, rising, added: "I must be off." The captain had meanwhile placed his liquor chest on the table and, in a glass of good old Jamaica rum, a hearty "Bon voyage" and responsive "Good wishes" were exchanged.

The subsequent story of Samuel, interesting and adventurous as it is, scarcely comes within the scope of the purpose of this article. After a brief stay at Jamaica, Samuel sailed before the mast on an English schooner carrying a cargo of dye-wood to Liverpool. Two years were passed here in the service of a wealthy merchant, whom he had served while a guest of his former master in New Orleans. During the third year he was joined by his wife and boy who had been liberated by their mistress. Subsequently the family took passage for Australia under the protection of a relative of his Liverpool employer, who was returning to extensive mining and sheep-raising interests near the rapidly growing city of Melbourne.¹³

John H. Paynter, A.M.

The Edmonsons

Lorenzo Dow¹

This is the record of a remarkable and eccentric white man who devoted himself to a life of singular labor and self-denial. In any consideration of the South one could not avoid giving at least passing notice to Lorenzo Dow as the foremost itinerant preacher of his time, as the first Protestant who expounded the gospel in Alabama and Mississippi, and as a reformer who, at the very moment when cotton was beginning to be supreme, presumed to tell the South that slavery was wrong.

He arrests attention--this gaunt, restless preacher. With his long hair, his flowing beard, his harsh voice, and his wild gesticulation, he was so rude and unkempt as to startle all conservative hearers. Said one of his opponents: "His manners (are) clownish in the extreme; his habit and appearance more filthy than a savage Indian, his public discourses a mere rhapsody, the substance often an insult upon the gospel." Said another as to his preaching in Richmond: "Mr. Dow's clownish manners, his heterodox and schismatic proceedings, and his reflections against the Methodist Episcopal Church, in a late production of his on church government, are impositions on common sense, and furnish the principal reasons why he will be discountenanced by the Methodists."

But he was made in the mould of heroes. In his lifetime he traveled not less than two hundred thousand miles, preaching to more people than any other man of his time. He went from New England to the extremities of the Union in the West again and again. Several times he went to Canada, once to the West Indies, and three times to England, everywhere drawing great crowds about him. Friend of the oppressed, he knew no path but that of duty. Evangel to the pioneer, he again and again left the haunts of men to seek the western wilderness. Conversant with the Scriptures, intolerant of wrong, witty and brilliant, he assembled his hearers by the thousands. What can account for so unusual a character? What were the motives that prompted this man to so extraordinary and laborious a life?

Lorenzo Dow was born October 16, 1777, in Coventry, Tolland County, Connecticut. When not yet four years old, he tells us, one day while at play he "suddenly fell into a muse about God and those places called heaven and hell." Once he killed a bird and was horrified for days at the act. Later he won a lottery prize of nine shillings and experienced untold remorse. An illness at the age of twelve gave him the shortness of breath from which he suffered more and more throughout his life. About this time he dreamed that the Prophet Nathan came to him and told him that he would live only until he was two-and-twenty. When thirteen he had another dream, this time of an old man, John Wesley, who showed to him the beauties of heaven and held out the promise that he would win if he was faithful to the end. A few years afterwards came to the town Hope Hull, preaching "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"; and Lorenzo said: "I thought he told me all that ever I did." The next day the future evangelist was converted.

But he was to be no ordinary Christian, this Lorenzo. Not satisfied with his early baptism, he had the ceremony repeated, and with twelve others formed a society for mutual watch and helpfulness. At the age of eighteen he had still another dream, this time seeing a brittle thread in the air suspended by a voice saying, "Woe unto you if you preach not the gospel." Then Wesley himself appeared again to him in a dream and warned him to set out at once upon his mission.

The young candidate applied to the Connecticut Conference of the Methodist Church. He met with a reception that would have daunted any man less courageous. He best tells the story himself: "My brethren sent me home. Warren and Greenwich circuits, in Rhode Island, were the first of my career. I obeyed, but with a sorrowful heart. Went out a second time to New Hampshire, but sent home again; I obeyed. Afterwards went to Conference by direction--who rejected me, and sent me home again; and again I obeyed. Was taken out by P.W. on to Orange circuit, but in 1797 was sent home again: so in obedience to man I went home a fourth time."

As a matter of fact there was much in the argument of the church against Lorenzo Dow at this time. The young preacher was not only ungraceful and ungracious in manner, but he had severe limitations in education and frequently assumed toward his elders an air needlessly arrogant and contemptuous. On the other hand he must reasonably have been offended by the advice so frequently given him in gratuitous and patronizing fashion. Soon after the last rebuff just recorded, however, he says, on going out on the Granville circuit, "The Lord gave me souls for my hire." Again making application to the Conference, he was admitted on trial for the first time in 1798 and sent to Canada to break fresh ground. He was not satisfied with the unpromising field and wrote, "My mind was drawn to the water, and Ireland was on my mind." His great desire was to preach the gospel to the Roman Catholics beyond the sea. Accordingly, on his twenty-second birthday, acting solely on his own resources, the venturesome evangelist embarked at Montreal for Dublin. Here he had printed three thousand handbills to warn the people of the wrath to come. He attracted some attention, but soon caught the smallpox and was forced to return home. Back in America, he communicated to the Conference his desire to "travel the country at large." The church, not at all impressed in his favor by his going to Ireland on his own accord, would do nothing more than admit him to his old status of being on trial, with appointment to the Dutchess, Columbia, and Litchfield circuits. Depressed, Dow gave up the work, and, desiring a warmer climate, he turned his face toward the South. From this time forth, while he constantly exhibited a willingness to meet the church half way, he consistently acted with all possible independence, and the church as resolutely set its face against him.

Dow landed in Savannah in January, 1802. This was his first visit to the region that was to mean so much to him and in whose history he himself was to play so interesting a rôle. He walked on foot for hundreds of miles in Georgia and South Carolina, everywhere preaching the gospel to all classes alike. Returning to the North, he found that once more he could not come to terms with his conference. He went back to the South, going now by land for the first time. He went as far as Mississippi, then the wild southwestern frontier, and penetrated far into the country of Indians and wolves. Returning in 1804, he became one of the first evangelists to cultivate the camp-meeting as an institution in central Virginia. Then he threw down the gauntlet to established Methodism, daring to speak in Baltimore while the General Conference of the church was in session there. The church replied at once, the New York Conference passing a law definitely commanding its churches to shut their doors against him.

Notwithstanding this opposition Dow continued to work with his usual zeal. About 1804 he was very busy, speaking at from five hundred to eight hundred meetings a year. In the year 1805, in spite of the inconveniences of those days, he traveled ten thousand miles. Then he made ready to go again to Europe. Everything possible was done by the regular church to embarrass him on this second visit, and when he arrived in England he found the air far from cordial. He did succeed in introducing his camp-meetings into the country, however; and although the Methodist Conference registered the opinion that such meetings were "highly improper in England," Dow prolonged his stay and planted seed which, as we shall see, was later to bear abundant fruit. Returning to America, the evangelist set out upon one of the most memorable periods of his life, journeying from New England to Florida in 1807, from Mississippi to New England and through the West in 1808, through Louisiana in 1809, through Georgia and North Carolina and back to New England in 1810, spending 1811 for the most part in New England, working southward to Virginia in 1812, and spending 1813 and 1814 in the Middle and Northern states, where the public mind was "darkened more and more against him." More than once he was forced to engage in controversy. Typical was the judgment of the Baltimore Conference in 1809, when, in a matter of difference between Dow and one Mr. S., without Dow's having been seen, opinion was given to the effect that Mr. S. "had given satisfaction" to the conference. Some remarks of Dow's on "Church Government" were seized upon as the excuse for the treatment generally accorded him by the church. In spite of much hostile opinion, however, Dow seems always to have found firm friends in the State of North Carolina. In 1818 a paper in Raleigh spoke of him as follows: "However his independent way of thinking, and his unsparing candor of language may have offended others, he has always been treated here with the respect due to his disinterested exertions, and the strong powers of mind which his sermons constantly exhibit."²

His hold upon the masses was remarkable. No preacher so well as he understood the heart of the pioneer. In a day when the "jerks," and falling and rolling on the ground, and dancing still accompanied religious emotion, he still knew how to give to his hearers, whether bond or free, the wholesome bread of life. Frequently he inspired an awe that was almost superstitious and made numerous converts. Sometimes he would make appointments a year beforehand and suddenly appear before a waiting congregation like an apparition. At Montville, Connecticut, a thief had stolen an axe. In the course of a sermon Dow said that the guilty man was in the congregation and had a feather on his nose. At once the right man was detected by his trying to brush away the feather. On another occasion Dow denounced a rich man who had recently died. He was tried for slander and imprisoned in the county jail. As soon as he was released he announced that he would preach about "another rich man." Going into the pulpit at the appointed time, he began to read: "And there was another rich man who died and--." Here he stopped and after a breathless pause he said, "Brethren, I shall not mention the place this rich man went to, for fear he has some relatives in this congregation who will sue me." The effect was irresistible; but Dow heightened it by taking another text, preaching a most dignified sermon, and not again referring to the text on which he had started.

Dow went again to England in 1818. He was not well received by the Calvinists or the Methodists, and, of course, not by the Episcopalians; but he found that his campmeeting idea had begun twelve years before a new religious sect, that of the Primitive Methodists, commonly known as "ranters." The society in 1818 was several thousand strong, and Dow visited between thirty and forty of its chapels. Returning home, he resumed his itineraries, going in 1827 as far west as Missouri. In thinking of this man's work in the West we must keep constantly in mind, of course, the great difference made by a hundred years. In Charleston in 1821 he was arrested for "an alleged libel against the peace and dignity of the State of South Carolina." His wife went north, as it was not known but that he might be detained a long time; but he was released on payment of a fine of one dollar. In Troy also he was once arrested on a false pretense. At length, however, he rejoiced to see his enemies defeated. In 1827 he wrote: "Those who instigated the trouble for me at Charleston, South Carolina, or contributed thereto, were all cut off within the space of three years, except Robert Y. Hayne, who was then the Attorney-General for the state, and is now the Governor for the nullifiers."³

The year 1833 Dow spent in visiting many places in New York, and in this year he made the following entry in his Journal: "I am now in my fifty-sixth year in the journey of life; and enjoy better health than when but 30 or 35 years old, with the exception of the callous in my breast, which at times gives me great pain.... The dealings of God to me-ward, have been good. I have seen his delivering hand, and felt the inward support of his grace, by faith and hope, which kept my head from sinking when the billows of affliction seemed to encompass me around.... And should those hints exemplified in the experience of Cosmopolite be beneficial to any one, give God the glory. Amen and Amen! Farewell!" He died the following year in Georgetown, District of Columbia, and rests under a simple slab in Oak Hill Cemetery in Washington.

There is only one word to describe the writings of Lorenzo Dow--Miscellanies. Anything whatsoever that came to the evangelist's mind was set down, not always with good form, though frequently with witty and forceful expression. Here are "Hints to the Public, or Thoughts on the Fulfilment of Prophecy in 1811"; "A Journey from Babylon to Jerusalem," with a good deal of sophomoric discussion of natural and moral philosophy; "A Dialogue between the Curious and the Singular," with some discussion of religious societies and theological principles; "The Chain of Lorenzo," an argument on the eternal sonship of Christ; "Omnifarious Law Exemplified: How to Curse and Swear, Lie, Cheat and Kill according to Law," "Reflections on the Important Subject of Matrimony," and much more of the same sort. "Strictures on Church Government" has already been referred to as bringing upon Dow the wrath of the Methodist Church. The general thesis of this publication, regarded at the time as so sensational, is that the Methodist mode of church government is the most arbitrary and despotic of any in America, with the possible exception of that of the Shakers.

"A Cry from the Wilderness--intended as a Timely and Solemn Warning to the People of the United States" is in every way one of Dow's most characteristic works. At this distance, when slavery and the Civil War are viewed in the perspective, the mystic words of the oracle impress us as almost uncanny: "In the rest of the southern states, the influence of these Foreigners will be known and felt in its time, and the seeds from the HORY ALLIANCE and the DECAPIGANDI, who have a hand in those grades of GENERALS, from the INQUISITOR to the Vicar General and down....

☞ The STRUGGLE will be DREADFUL! the CUP will be BITTER! and when the agony is over, those who survive may see better days! FAREWELL!"⁴

A radical preacher of the Gospel, he could not but be moved with compassion on observing the condition of the Negroes in the South during these years. When denied admission to white churches because of his apparent fanaticism he often found it pleasant to move among the blacks. Arriving in Savannah, one day, he was accosted by a Negro, who, seeing that he had no place to stop, inquired as to whether he would accept the hospitality of a black home. He embraced this opportunity and found the people by whom he was entertained "as decent as two thirds of the citizens of Savannah."⁵ When on another occasion in Savannah he learned that Andrew Bryan, the Negro minister of the city, had, because of his preaching, been whipped unmercifully and imprisoned, Dow preached to the congregation himself.⁶ He moved among Negroes, lived with them socially, distributed tracts among them, preached to them the Word, counted them with pride among his converts and treasured in his memory his experiences among them.⁷

As a result this liberal-minded man was naturally opposed to slavery. He was as outspoken a champion of freedom as lived in America in his day. "Slavery in the South," said he, "is an evil that calls for national reform and repentance." He thought that this "national scourge in this world" might "be antidoted before the storm" gathered and burst.⁸ "As all men are created equal and independent by God of Nature," contended he, "Slavery must have Moral Evil for its foundation, seeing it violates the Law of Nature, as established by its author." "Ambition and avarice on the one hand," thought he, "and social dependence upon the other, affords the former an opportunity of being served at the expense of the latter and this unnatural state of things hath been exemplified in all countries, and all ages of the world from time immemorial." He further said, "Pride and vain glory on the one side, and degradation and oppression on the other creates on the one hand a spirit of contempt, and on the other a spirit of hatred and revenge, preparing them to be dissolute: and qualifying them for every base and malicious work!" He believed that "the mind of man is ever aspiring for a more exalted station; the consequence is the better slaves used the more saucy and impertinent they become: of course the practice must be wholly abolished or the slaves must be governed with absolute sway." He had discovered that "the exercise of an absolute sway over others begets an unnatural hardness which as it becomes imperious contaminates the mind of the governor; while the governed becomes factious and stupefied like brute beasts, which are kept under by a continual dread and hence whenever the subject is investigated, the evils of despotism presents to view in all their odious forms." ⁹

His attack on slavery, however, was neither so general nor universal as would be expected of such a radical. He saw that "there is a distinction admissible in some cases, between Slavery itself and the spirit of slavery." "A man may possess slaves by inheritance or some other way; and may not have it in his power either to liberate them or to make better their circumstances, being trammelled by the Laws and circumstances of the country,--yet whilst he feels a sincere wish to do them all the justice he can." He remarked too that "we have no account of Jesus Christ saying one word about emancipation. Onesimus ran away from Philemon to Rome; whence finding Paul, whom he had seen at his master's, he experienced religion, and was sent back by the apostle with a letter--but not a word about setting him free."¹⁰

Contrasting then the unhappy state with that of the past, he said, "The first and primitive Christians had all things common, not from commandment but from spirit by which they were influenced day by day; so when the time of restitution takes place, which will be long before the consummation of all things, then the Law of Nature, from Moral principles will be practiced and the world will be as one concentrated Family." "The openings to Providence preparatory to that day should be attended to, from principles of duty--lest judgments should perform what offered mercy if not rejected may be ready to accomplish. To feed and clothe another is both the interest and duty of all Masters--and the sixth chapter of Ephesians is an excellent tract on the subject to all who wish for advice, both as masters and servants."¹¹

It was likewise in keeping with Dow's fearlessness to denounce the efforts to discriminate against Negroes in the early Churches. He questioned the far-reaching authority of Bishop Coke, Asbury, and McKendree, and accused Asbury of being jealous of the rising power of Richard Allen, founder of the African Methodist Church.¹² He refers at considerable length to the incident in a Philadelphia church which ultimately made Absalom Jones a rector and Richard Allen a bishop: "The colored people were considered by some persons as being in the way. They were resolved to have them removed, and placed around the walls, corners, etc.; which to execute, the above expelled and restored man, at prayer time, did attempt to pull Absolom Jones from his knees, which procedure, with its concomitants, gave rise to the building of an African meeting house, the first ever built in these middle or northern states."

Here at least was a man with a mission--that mission to carry the gospel of Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth. He knew no standard but that of duty; he heeded no command but that of his own soul. Rude, and sharp of speech he was, and only half-educated; but he was made of the stuff of heroes; and neither hunger, nor cold, nor powers, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, could daunt him in his task. After the lapse of a hundred years he looms larger, not smaller, in the history of our Southland; and as of old we seem to hear again "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord."

Benjamin Brawley

The Attitude of the Free Negro Toward African Colonization

In the midst of the perplexities arising from various plans for the solution of the race problem one hundred years ago, the colonization movement became all things to all men. Some contended that it was a philanthropic enterprise; others considered it a scheme for getting rid of the free people of color because of the seeming menace they were to slavery. It was doubtless a combination of several ideas.¹ Furthermore, the meaning of colonization varied on the one hand according to the use the slave-holding class hoped to make of it, and on the other hand according to the intensity of the attacks directed against it by the Abolitionists and the free colored people because of the acquiescent attitude of colonizationists toward the persecution of the free blacks both in the North and South.²

Almost as soon as the Negroes had a chance to express themselves they offered urgent protest against the policy of removing them to a foreign land. Before the American Colonization Society had scarcely organized, the free people of Richmond, Virginia, thought it advisable to assemble under the sanction of authority in 1817, to make public expression of their sentiments respecting this movement. William Bowler and Lenty Craw were the leading spirits of the meeting. They agreed with the Society that it was not only proper, but would ultimately tend to benefit and aid a great portion of their suffering fellow creatures to be colonized; but they preferred being settled "in the remotest corner of the land of their nativity." As the president and board of managers of the Society had been pleased to leave it to the entire discretion of Congress to provide a suitable place for carrying out this plan, they passed a resolution to submit to the wisdom of that body whether it would not be an act of charity to grant them a small portion of their territory, either on the Missouri River or any place that might seem to them most conducive to the public good and their future welfare, subject, however, to such rules and regulations as the government of the United States might think proper.³ Many Negroes, however, emigrated from this State during later years. Subsequent accounts indicate, too, that this increasing interest in colonization among the colored people of that Commonwealth extended even into North Carolina.⁴

Farther north we observe more frequent and frank expressions of the attitude of the colored people toward this enterprise. When the people of Richmond, Virginia, registered their mild protest against it, about 3,000 free blacks of Philadelphia took higher ground.⁵ Because their ancestors not of their own accord were the first successful cultivators of the wilds of America, they felt themselves entitled to participate in the blessings of its "luxuriant soil," which their blood and sweat had moistened. They viewed with deep abhorrence the unmerited stigma attempted to be cast upon the reputation of the free people of color, "that they are a dangerous and useless part of the community," when in the state of disfranchisement in which they lived, in the hour of danger, they "ceased to remember their wrongs and rallied around the standard of their country." They were determined never to separate themselves from the slave population of this country as they were brethren by the "ties of consanguinity, of suffering, and of wrong."⁶ They, therefore, appointed a committee of eleven persons to open correspondence with Joseph Hopkinson, member of Congress from that city, to inform him of the sentiments of the meeting, and issued an address to the "Humane and Benevolent Inhabitants of Philadelphia,"⁷ disclaiming all connection with the society, questioning the professed philanthropy of its promoters, and pointing out how disastrous it would be to the free colored people, should it be carried out.⁸

Although a few persecuted Negroes of Maryland from the very beginning believed it advisable to emigrate, the first action of importance observed among the colored people of Baltimore, favoring colonization in Africa, was that of a series of meetings held there in 1826. The sentiment of these delegates as expressed by their resolutions was that the time had come for the colored people to express their interest in the efforts which the wise and philanthropic were making in their behalf. Differing from the people of Richmond they felt that, although residing in this country, they were strangers, not citizens, and that because of the difference of color and servitude of most of their race, they could not hope to enjoy the immunities of freemen. Believing that there would be left a channel through which might pass such as thereafter received their freedom, they urged emigration to Africa as the scheme which they believed would offer the quickest and best relief.⁹

We have not been able to find many records which give proof that in the States far South there was much opposition of the Negroes to the plan of removing the free people of color from the United States. We must not conclude, however, that this absence of protest from the free colored people in that section of the country was due to the fact that they almost unanimously approved the plan of African Colonization.¹⁰ Consideration must be given to the fact that the free colored people in the Southern States did not exercise the privilege of free speech. Consequently, if there were even a large minority who opposed the plan, they were afraid to make their views known, especially when this movement was being promoted by some of the leading white people of that section.

Occasionally there arose among the colored people of the South advocates of colonization, setting forth the advantages of emigration in all but convincing style.¹¹ Such was a free man of color of Savannah in the year 1832. He had always viewed the principles on which the American Colonization Society was grounded as one of large policy, though he saw it was "aided by a great deal of benevolence." And when viewing his situation with those of his colored brethren of the United States he had often wondered what prevented them from rising with one accord to accept the offer made them, although they might sacrifice the comforts of their present situation. He had often almost come to the conclusion that he would make the sacrifice, and had only been prevented by unfavorable accounts of the climate. Hearing that Liberia needed help, he desired to go. He and the Negroes for whom he spoke seemed to be of an enterprising kind. He understood the branches of "wheel-wright, blacksmith, and carpentry," and had made some progress in machinery. He did not expect to go at the expense of the Society and therefore hoped to take with him something more than those who had emigrated on those terms.¹²

Another such freeman spoke from Charleston the same year. He had observed with much regret that Northern States were passing laws to get rid of the free people of color driven from the South on account of hostile legislation.¹³ He was also fearful as to the prospects of the free blacks even in favorable Southern cities like Charleston, where they were given a decided preference in most of the higher pursuits of labor. He believed, therefore, that emigration to Africa was the solution of their problem. He urged this for the reason that the country offered them and their posterity forever protection in life, liberty, "and property by honor of office with the gift of the people, privileges of sharing in the government, and finally the opportunity to become a perfectly free and independent people, and a distinguished nation."¹⁴ The letters of Thomas S. Grimké written to the Colonization Society during these years show that other freedmen of Charleston driven to the same conclusions were planning to emigrate.¹⁵

Conditions in that State, however, forced some free Negroes to emigrate to foreign soil. A number of free colored people left Charleston, and settled in certain free States. After residing two or three years in the North they found out that their condition instead of improving had grown worse, as they were more despised, crowded out of every respectable employment, and even very much less respected. They, therefore, returned to their former home. On reaching Charleston, however, they were still dissatisfied with their condition. Changes, which had taken place during their absence from the State, made it evident that in this country they could never possess those rights and privileges which all men desire. Some of them resolved, therefore, to try their fortunes in Liberia.¹⁶

The Negroes in Alabama had also become interested in the movement during these years.¹⁷ In writing to Mr. McLain, of Washington, S. Wesley Jones, a colored man of Tuscaloosa, said that save the Christian religion there was no subject of so much importance and that lay so near his heart as that of African Colonization. All that was necessary to change the attitude on the part of the colored people was a "move by some one in whom the people have confidence to put the whole column in motion," and just "when there is a start made in Alabama the whole body of the free people of color will join in a solid phalanx." As for himself he had fully made up his mind to go to Liberia, but could not leave the United States until he had closed up a ten years' business, and if successful in collecting "tolerably well" what was due him he would be able to go without expense to the Society.¹⁸

In July, 1848, this same writer addressed to Mr. McLain another letter in which he gave details of a trip he had made in an adjoining county in the interest of emigration to Liberia. During this trip he said he had found a few free colored people who, after he had talked with them on the subject, were of one accord that the best thing they could do for themselves was to emigrate to Liberia.¹⁹ In another letter addressed to McLain by the same writer December 29, 1851, it was stated that the colonization movement was still growing in the State. He also said that "those of us who want to go to Liberia are men who have been striving to do something" for themselves and consequently have "more or less business to close up." Mention was also made of the fact that there were at Huntsville, in the northern part of the State, several who had in part "made up their minds to go and only wanted a little encouragement to set them fully in favor of Liberia."²⁰

Although thus favorably received in the South, however, the Colonization Society met opposition in other parts. The spreading of the immediate abolition doctrine by men like Garrison and Jay had a direct bearing on the enterprise. The two movements became militantly arrayed against each other and tended to inflame the minds of the colored people throughout the country. The consensus of opinion among them was that the Colonization Society was their worst enemy and its efforts would tend only to exterminate the free people of color and perpetuate the institution of slavery.²¹ So general was this feeling that T. H. Gallaudet, a promoter of the colonization movement, writing to one of its officers in 1831, said that something must be done to calm the feelings of the colored people in the large cities of the North.²² Their resentment seemed to be due not so much to the fact that they were urged to emigrate, but that a large number of the promoters of the enterprise seemed to feel that the free Negroes should be forced to leave.²³ Considering themselves as much entitled to the protection of the laws of this country as any other element of its population, they took the position that any free man of color who would accept the offers of the colonization movement should be branded as an enemy of his race. They not only demonstrated their unalterable opposition but expressed a firm resolve to resist the colonizationists even down to death.

The proceedings of these meetings will throw much light on the excitement then prevailing among the free people of color in the border and Northern States. In 1831 a Baltimore meeting, led by William Douglass and William Watkins, expressed the belief that the American Colonization Society was founded "more upon selfish policy than in the true principles of benevolence; and, therefore, as far as it regards the life-giving spring of its operations," that it was not entitled to their confidence, and should be viewed by them with that caution and distrust which their happiness demanded. They considered the land in which they had been born and bred their only "true and appropriate home," and declared that when they desired to remove they would apprise the public of the same, in due season.²⁴ That same year a large meeting of colored people of Washington, in the District of Columbia, convened for the purpose of expressing their opinion on this important question. Although they knew that among the advocates of the colonizing system, they had many true and sincere friends, they declared that the efforts of these philanthropists, though prompted no doubt by the purest motives, should be viewed with distress. They further asserted that, as the soil which gave them birth was their only true and veritable home, it would be impolitic, if they should leave their home without the benefit of education.²⁵ A meeting of the very same order of the free people of color of Wilmington, Delaware, that year, led by Peter Spencer and Thomas Dorsey, took the position that the colonization movement was inimical to the best interests of the colored people, and at variance with the principles of civil and religious liberty, and wholly incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence of the United States.²⁶

A meeting of free colored people held in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1831, was of the opinion that none should leave the United States, but if there were or should be any expatriated in consequence of abuses from their white countrymen, it was advisable to recommend them to Haiti or Upper Canada where they would find equal laws. In regard to their being sent to Africa, because they were natives of that land, they asked: "How can a man be born in two countries at the same time?" In refutation of the argument made by the Colonization Society, that the establishment of the colony in Liberia would prevent the further operation of the slave trade, they said: "We might as well argue that a watchman in the city of Boston would prevent thievery in New York; or that the custom house officers there would prevent goods being smuggled into any other port of the United States."²⁷ Because there were in the United States much better lands on which a colony might be established, and at a much cheaper expense to those who promoted it, than could possibly be had by sending them into "a howling wilderness across the seas," they questioned the philanthropy of the promoters of African colonization and adopted resolutions in opposition to the movement.²⁸

A public meeting of colored citizens of New York, with Samuel Ennals and Philip Bell as promoters, referred to the Colonizationists as men of "mistaken views" with respect to the welfare and wishes of the colored people. The meeting solemnly protested against the bold effort to colonize the oppressed free people of color on the ground that it was "unjust, illiberal and unfounded; tending to excite prejudice of the community."²⁹ At a meeting of the free colored people of Brooklyn, promoted by Henry C. Thompson and George Hogarth, it was resolved that they knew of no other country in which they could justly claim or demand their rights as citizens, whether civil or political, but in the United States of America, their native soil; and that they would be active in their endeavors to convince the members of the Colonization Society, and the public generally, that being men, brethren, and fellow citizens, they were like other citizens entitled to an equal share of protection from the Federal Government.³⁰

The sentiment of a meeting at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1831, was that the American Colonization Society was actuated by the same motives which influenced the mind of Pharaoh, when he ordered the male children of the Israelites to be destroyed. They believed that the Society was the greatest of all foes to the free colored people and slave population; and that the man of color who would emigrate to Liberia was an enemy to the cause and a traitor to his brethren. As they had committed no crime worthy of banishment, they would resist all attempts of the Colonization Society to banish them from their native land.³¹ A New Haven meeting of the Peace and Benevolent Society of Afric-Americans, led by Henry Berrian and Henry N. Merriman, expressed interest in seeing Africa become civilized and religiously instructed, but not by the absurd and invidious plan of the colonization society to send a "nation of ignorant men to teach a nation of ignorant men." They would, therefore, resist all attempts for their removal to the torrid shores of Africa, and would sooner suffer every drop of their blood to be taken from their veins than submit to such unrighteous treatment. From the colored people of Lyme, Connecticut, came the sincere opinion that the Colonization Society was one of the wildest projects ever patronized by enlightened men. The colored citizens of Middletown, chief among whom were Joseph Gilbert and Amos G. Beman, inquired "Why should we leave this land, so dearly bought by the blood, groans and tears of our fathers? Truly this is our home," said they, "here let us live and here let us die."³²

The meeting in Columbia, Pennsylvania, the leaders of which were Stephen Smith and James Richard, expressed the opinion that African colonization was a scheme of the Southern planters and wicked device of slaveholders who were desirous of riveting more firmly, and perpetuating more certainly, the fetters of slavery by ridding themselves of a population whose presence, influence and example had a tendency (as they supposed) to produce discontent among the slaves, and to furnish them with inducements to rebellion.³³ A few weeks later a meeting was held at Pittsburgh under the leadership of J. B. Vashon and R. Bryan. The colored people of this city styled themselves as brethren and countrymen as much entitled to the free exercise of the elective franchise as any other inhabitants and demanded an equal share of protection from the Federal Government. They informed the Colonization Society that should their reason forsake them, then might they desire to remove. They would apprise them of that change in due season. As citizens of the United States, they mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, not to support a colony in Africa nor Upper Canada, nor yet emigrate to Haiti. Here they were born--here they would live by the help of the Almighty God--and here they would die.³⁴ Early in 1832, the colored people of Lewiston, Pennsylvania, in a meeting called by Samuel and Martin Johnston, expressed practically the same sentiments.³⁵ Through the influence of Jacob D. Richardson and Jacob G. Williams, an indignation meeting of the same kind was held at Harrisburg.³⁶

The free people of color, assembled at Nantucket, Rhode Island, in 1831, under the leadership of Arthur Cooper and Edward J. Pompey, saw no philanthropy in the colonization movement, but discovered in it a scheme gotten up to delude them from their native land into a country of sickness and death.³⁷ A Trenton meeting promoted by Lewis Cork and Abner H. Francis viewed the American Colonization Society as the most inveterate foe both to the free and slave man of color. These memorialists disclaimed all union with the Society and, once for all, declared that they would never remove under its patronage either to Africa or elsewhere.³⁸

In New York there had been various expressions pro and con as to emigration to Liberia, but it does not seem that a large number of colored people of that city ever favored it. They believed rather in emigration to Canada. The attitude of the people of that State was shown in 1834 by the troubles of Reverend Peter Williams, Rector of St. Phillip's Church in the city of New York. Working through the Phoenix Society and the Anti-Slavery Society he had endeavored to convince the free colored people that the idea held out to men of color that no matter how they might strive to become intelligent, virtuous and useful, they could never enjoy the privilege of citizens in the United States, was erroneous. On the contrary, he believed that the Declaration of Independence, which his father had helped to maintain, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ had sufficient power to raise the people of color at some time to the rank of citizenship. Although his opposition never extended further than the expression of his views, there arose so much antagonism to him that he was asked by his bishop to resign from the Anti-Slavery Society, because of a disturbance in his church.³⁹ There remained others, however, to continue the attack. At a meeting in 1839 the free people of color of New York entered a unanimous protest against the efforts of this body, reiterating the sentiment that the American Colonization Society was the source from which came the various proscriptions and oppressions under which they groaned.⁴⁰

The attitude of the free blacks of New York was probably better demonstrated on the occasion of the appearance of W. S. Ball, who had been sent to Liberia by the free colored people of Illinois to secure definite information concerning the advisability of emigrating to Africa. On his return to New York, he made a speech to a large assembly of colored people, some of whom desiring to see Liberia for themselves, had made preparations for a company to sail September, 1848. Ball expressed himself as well pleased with the country and after interesting the colored people of Illinois^40a he hoped to return to Liberia with a large emigration. The colored people of New York received him in good faith. While the Liberian Commissioners were in session, President Roberts and his comrades were invited to come to the Anthony Street Church to inform them of the country. After several speeches had been made, opportunity was given to the colored people to ask questions that had not been touched upon. This continued for some time and seemed to elicit information highly favorable to the cause, until a Mr. Morrill made his way up the aisle toward the platform. After having gained the attention of the audience with an air of superiority which showed he was accustomed to control audiences of colored people, he said that he had just come into town and was surprised to find his friends engaged in holding a colonization meeting. "That question," said he, "has been settled long ago! and the Liberia humbug--" At this point the hisses were so loud he could not be heard. Finally after much yelling and shouting of "hear him," the meeting became a bedlam and the presiding officer attempted to leave the chair. Finding order impossible the meeting was adjourned in an uproar. Amid cries of "a fight, a fight," women leaped over the pews and made their way to the doors. After some time had elapsed order was restored by clearing the house, but Morrill, who seemingly had come with the expressed purpose of breaking up the meeting, was not found in the chaos that ensued.⁴¹

Doubtless the best expression of antagonism to the American Colonization Society came from the Annual Convention of the Free Colored People held first in 1830 and almost annually thereafter in Philadelphia and other Northern cities almost until the Civil War. The Second Annual Convention showed an attitude of militant opposition by emphatically protesting against any appropriation by Congress in behalf of the movement. The Third Annual Convention, which met in Philadelphia in 1833, probably represented the high water mark of their antagonism to this enterprise. There were 59 representatives of the free people of color from eight different States, namely, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The leaders of the movement were James Forten, Robert Douglas, Joseph Cassey, Robert Purvis, and James McCrummell. At an early stage in the proceedings of this Convention there prevailed a motion that "a committee consisting of one delegate from each of the States represented in the Convention, be appointed to draft resolutions expressive of the sentiments of the people of color in regard to the subject of colonization." Although these men were opposed to emigration to Africa, they favored a sort of colonization in some part of America, for the relief of such persons as might leave the United States on account of oppressive laws like those of Ohio.⁴² The colored people would in this case give such refugees all aid in their power.

After having divested themselves of "all unreasonable prejudice," and reviewed the whole ground of their opposition to the American Colonization Society, with all the candor of which they were capable, they still declared to the world that they were unable to arrive at any other conclusion than that the life-giving principles of the Society were totally repugnant to the spirit of true benevolence; that the doctrines which the Society inculcated were hostile to those of their holy religion and in direct violation of the golden rule, and that "the inevitable tendency of this doctrine was to strengthen the cruel prejudice of their opponents, to still the heart of sympathy to the appeals of suffering Negroes, and retard their advancement in morals, literature and science, in short, to extinguish the last glimmer of hope, and throw an impenetrable gloom over their fears and most reasonable prospects." All plans for actual colonization, therefore, were rejected.⁴³

The movement thereafter continued to receive the attention of the people in the various parts of the country, being generally denounced. The Negroes of Ohio were prominent among those who opposed it.⁴⁴ Invited to hear a lecture by Mr. Pinney, a former governor of Liberia, then on a tour in the United States raising funds to purchase land there, the free blacks of Cincinnati held a meeting to protest. Arrogating to themselves the privilege of expressing the opinion of all the colored people of the United States, they respectfully declined the invitation for the reasons that the scheme was iniquitous in that it implied the assumption of the inequality of the free people of color.⁴⁵ They accordingly urged that such sums as their so-called friends might give for the purchase of land in Africa might be used for establishing schools and asylums for colored children in this country.⁴⁶ At a series of meetings of free colored people, held in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, during the winter of 1845-46, the Colonization Society was denounced as an organization whose proceedings tended to aggravate the injustice with which the free colored people were treated in this country. It was called the greatest antagonist which colored people had to meet and put down, before they could "stand erect in this country." During the meeting a very bitter spirit was shown toward the white race. They passed resolutions declaring that the colored people were entitled to all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the whites and pledged themselves never to rest until they had redressed their wrongs and gained their rights.⁴⁷

Another important instance of the opposition of the colored people of the North and West may be observed in the proceedings of a meeting held in Cincinnati. Mr. Vashon, a free man of color of Pittsburgh, had a motion passed in one of their anti-slavery meetings in that city, "declaring the Colonization Society inimical to the best interests of the free colored population of the country, and unworthy of the support of the churches." After speeches had been made by Vashon and Henry Gloster, a free man of color from Michigan, the original motion was passed with but one or two dissenting voices in spite of the efforts to amend it. It is probable that the amendments proposed were to soften the tone of the original motion, but no mention was made of them other than to state that they were offered by the opposition.⁴⁸

Numerous other meetings were held to continue the expression of the same sentiments. At a meeting in Boston in 1847 the Colonization Society was referred to as the expatriating institution which would never be able to expel "Americans by birth" pledged never to leave their native land.⁴⁹ A State convention of colored people of New York held during three days in the capital at Albany, 1851, unanimously expressed their pleasure at the failure of the Colonization Society of that State to obtain an appropriation from the Legislature.⁵⁰ At another meeting at Albany in 1852, Reverend J. W. C. Pennington and Dr. J. McCune Smith were instrumental in inducing the meeting to adopt an able refutation of Governor Hunt's views in favor of a similar appropriation.⁵¹ Another State Convention of Colored People of Ohio convened in Cincinnati, unconditionally condemned the Society because its policy of expatriating the free colored people was merely to render slave property more secure and valuable.⁵² John M. Langston was the chairman of this meeting. Other such meetings held in Rochester, New York, and New Bedford, Massachusetts, about the same time, expressed similar sentiments.⁵³ On the occasion of the formation of a County Colonization Society as a result of a visit of J. B. Pinney to Syracuse, resolutions expressing deep regret that the influence of the Society had extended to that section⁵⁴ were unanimously passed. At another meeting at Providence, the same year, the Colonization Society was denounced because of the plea that its motive in promoting emigration to Africa was to Christianize the heathen.⁵⁵

A series of meetings were held in Ohio to oppose the efforts of colonization agents.⁵⁶ A Columbus meeting of 1849 considered such workers inveterate enemies. Another meeting in the same place in 1851 referred to one of their memorials as containing the false statement that the colored people of Ohio were prepared to go to Liberia. They considered N. L. Rice and David Christy, promoters of the colonization scheme in that State, avowed friends of slavery and slaveholders.⁵⁷ In a subsequent State Convention in 1853, they urged every free black to use his influence against any bill offered in any State, or national legislature to appropriate money for this enterprise.⁵⁸ When "Cushing's Bill" to facilitate colonization was offered, the free people of Cincinnati, Ohio, held an indignation meeting in 1853 to organize their friends to prevent its passage.⁵⁹

The most distinguished Negroes of the country, too, were using the rostrum and the press to impede the progress of the American Colonization Society. Prominent among these protagonists were Samuel E. Cornish, and Theodore S. Wright, who without doubt voiced the sentiments of the majority of the free colored people in the North. These leaders took occasion in 1840 to attack Theodore Frelinghuysen and Benjamin Butler who had been reported as saying that the colonization project had been received with delight by the colored people.⁶⁰ Answering this assertion, they maintained that "if it was said of Southern slaves--if it had been asserted that they yearned for Africa or indeed, any part of the world, even more unhospitable and unhappy, where they might be free from their masters, there probably would have been no one to dissent from that opinion." But to prove that this was not the situation among the free people of color these spokesmen related numerous facts, showing that in various conventions from year to year the free blacks had protested against emigration to Africa.⁶¹

The greatest enemy of the Colonization Society among the freedmen, however, was yet to appear. This was Frederick Douglass. At the National Convention of Free People of Color, held at Rochester, New York, in 1853, he was called upon to write the address to the colored people of the United States. A significant expression in this address was: "We ask that no appropriation whatever, State or national, be granted to the colonization scheme. We would have our right to leave or remain in the United States placed above legislative interference."⁶² He had already gone on record in writing to Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe in reply to her inquiry as to the best thing to be done for the elevation of the colored people. "Evidently the Society," said he, "looks upon our extremity as their opportunity and whenever the elements are started against us they are stimulated to immeasurable activity. They do not deplore our misfortunes but rather rejoice in them."⁶³ He referred to the Society as the twin sister of slavery, still at her post fostering prejudice against the colored man and scattering abroad her hateful unphilosophical dogmas as to the inferiority of the Negro and the necessity of his expatriation for his elevation and that of his white country men. "The truth is," said he, "we are here and here we are likely to remain. Individuals emigrate, nations never. We have grown up with this republic and I see nothing in her character or find in the character of the American people as yet, which compels the belief that we must leave the United States."⁶⁴

All the free persons of color, however, did not continue to think on this wise. After the ebullitions of sentiment had ceased, a few Negroes began to think that emigration was not an unmixed evil. They were driven to this position in various ways. Some desired to flee from increasing persecution then afflicting free Negroes both in the North and in the South; others were won over by such inducements for commercial advancement as a pacification of Yoruba seemed to offer in opening up the Soudan; and not a few like Alexander Crummell⁶⁵ and Daniel A. Payne, who, although opposed to the expatriation of their race, favored colonization so far as it would redeem Africa. Even Frederick Douglass, in answering the charge that the free people of color had been prejudiced against efforts to redeem Africa, stated that they were very much in favor of such a work, but objected to the efforts of the Colonization Society because of its "defect of good motives,"⁶⁶ A number of Negroes yielded also to the logic of the Colonizationists, who in trying to disabuse their minds of the thought that it would be a disgrace to leave this country as exiles, held up to them the example of the Pilgrim Fathers who left their native land to obtain political and religious liberty. Furthermore, some Negroes like Martin R. Delaney, who had at first fearlessly opposed the colonization of the blacks in Africa, began during the fifties to promote the emigration of the free people of color to other parts. Many of this persuasion went to Canada West and some few to Trinidad.⁶⁷

Although antagonism to African Colonization was pronounced in the Northern free States, there were several intelligent colored men who were strongly in favor of it. It was said, however, that such Negroes had usually been educated or aided in some way by the American Colonization Society. One of this class of spokesmen was George Baltimore, of Whitehall. In reading in the National Watchman a notice for a call for a national convention of colored people to be held in Troy, in 1847, he availed himself of the opportunity to speak for the Colonization Society. Referring to the suggestions set forth in the call, the writer said that he could adopt all of them excepting the one to recommend emigration and colonization not of Africa, Asia, or Europe. He considered this a fling at the American Colonization Society, and those people of color who were desirous of going to their fatherland.⁶⁸ Another spokesman of this order was Alphonso M. Sumner, of Philadelphia. Personally he was in favor of emigrating from the United States and was of the opinion that, at that time at least, colonization in Liberia offered the only tangible means of attaining their wishes. He believed that the abolition of the slave trade could be attained in no other way, but like most colored men in the free States, favoring colonization, he was desirous of knowing something about the land before emigrating thereto.⁶⁹

Writing from Hartford in 1851, Augustus Washington stated that he was well aware that there could be nothing more startling than that a Northern colored man, considered intelligent and sound in faith, should declare his opinion and use his influence in favor of African colonization. He maintained, however, that the novelty of the thing did not prove it false any more than it would be to say that because one breaks away from a long-established custom he may not have the least reason for doing so. He urged the free colored people to emigrate from the crowded cities to less populous parts of the United States, to the Great West or to Africa, or to any place where they might secure an equality of rights and liberties with a mind unfettered and space in which to rise. Moreover, from the time he was a lad of fifteen years of age, and especially since the Mexican War, he had advocated the plan of a separate State for the colored people.⁷⁰ In a letter addressed to the editor of the African Repository, in 1853, Nathaniel Bowen undertook to express similar views. Although they possessed only partial freedom in this country, the free colored people of his city, Rome, New York, were generally against colonization. Moreover, he found many colored people who talked of and favored going to Canada, but he believed if those persons would take their interests into consideration, they would not hesitate to go to Africa.⁷¹

The efforts toward emigration too took organized form during the forties and fifties. In 1848 the free colored people of Dayton, Ohio, held a meeting to express their sentiments in favor of emigration to Africa, and to ask the white citizens to aid them in going there.⁷² The movement also reached the colored people of Cincinnati, Ohio.⁷³ At a meeting held in that city on the 14th of July, 1850, they adopted a preamble and resolutions expressing similar sentiments. Going a step further, in 1850 a number of free Negroes of New York formed an organization called the New York and Liberian Agricultural and Emigration Society to coöperate with the Colonization Society. Considerable money was collected by the organization to aid emigrants whom they sent to Liberia.⁷⁴

In July, 1852, there was held in Baltimore, a meeting of delegates from the city and different sections of the State of Maryland. After heated discussion and much excitement they passed resolutions to examine the different foreign localities for emigration, giving preference to Liberia. It seemed that although a majority of the delegates present desired to coöperate with the American Colonization Society, they were afraid to do so because of the opposition of the Baltimore people, who in a state of excitement almost developed into a mob intent upon breaking up the meeting.⁷⁵ As this meeting of delegates from the whole State seemed to be favorable to the colonization enterprise, the people of Baltimore felt it incumbent upon them to hold another meeting a few days thereafter, maintaining that they did not know that a previous meeting was called for the consideration of the questions brought before it, and denounced it as being unrepresentative. They said that they were not opposed to voluntary emigration but did not at any time elect delegates to the so-called Colored Colonization Convention.⁷⁶

To carry out more effectively the work of ameliorating the condition of the colored people, a National Council composed of two members chosen by election at a poll in each State, was organized in 1853. As many as twenty State conventions were to be represented. Before these plans could be well matured, however, those who believed that emigration was the only solution of the race problem called another convention to consider merely that question. Only those who would not introduce the question of African emigration but favored colonization in some other parts were invited. Among the persons thus interested were Reverend William Webb and Martin R. Delaney of Pittsburgh, Doctor J. Gould Bias and Franklin Turner of Philadelphia, Reverend Augustus R. Greene of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, James M. Whitfield of New York, William Lambert of Michigan, Henry Bibb, James Theodore Holly of Canada, and Henry M. Collins of California.⁷⁷ Frederick Douglass criticised this step as uncalled for, unwise, unfortunate, and premature. "A convention to consider the subject of emigration," said he, "when every delegate must declare himself in favor of it before hand, as a condition of taking his seat, is like the handle of the jug, all on one side."⁷⁸ James M. Whitfield, the Negro poet of America, came to the defense of his co-workers, he and Douglass continuing the literary duel for a number of weeks. The convention was accordingly held. In it there appeared three parties, one led by Doctor Delaney who desired to go to the Niger Valley in Africa, another by Whitfield, whose interests seemed to be in Central America, and a third by Holly who showed a preference for Haiti. The leaders of these respective parties were commissioned to go to these various countries to do what they could in carrying out their schemes.⁷⁹ Holly went to Haiti and took up with the Minister of the Interior the question of admitting Negro emigrants from the United States.⁸⁰

Among the colored people of the Northwest there appeared evidence of considerable interest in emigration. This was especially true of Illinois and Indiana, from which commissioners had been sent out to spy the land.⁸¹ This is evidenced too by the sentiment expressed by delegates attending the Cleveland Convention in 1854. The next emigration convention was held at Chatham, Canada West, in 1856. One of the important features of this meeting was the hearing the report of Holly who went to Haiti the previous year. From this same meeting Martin R. Delaney proceeded on his mission to the Niger Valley in Africa. There he concluded a treaty with eight African kings, offering inducements to Negroes to emigrate. In the meantime James Redpath had gone to Haiti and accomplished some things that Holly failed to achieve. He was appointed Haitian Commissioner of Emigration in the United States, with Holly as his co-worker. They succeeded in sending to Haiti as many as two thousand emigrants, the first sailing in 1861. Owing to their unpreparedness and the unfavorable climate, not more than one third of them remained.⁸²

Considering the facts herein set forth we are compelled to say that the colonization movement was a failure. Although it did finally interest a number of free Negroes their concern in it did not materialize on account of the outbreak of the Civil War occurring soon thereafter. On the whole, the movement never appealed to a large number of intelligent free people of color. With the exception of those who hoped to be especially benefited thereby, few leading Negroes dared to support the enterprise. The most weighty evidence we can offer is statistics themselves. The report of the Colonization Society shows that from 1820 to 1833 ⁸³ only 2,885 colored persons had been sent out by the Society. More than 2,700 of this number were taken from the slave States, and about two thirds of these were slaves manumitted on the condition of their emigrating. Of the 7,836⁸⁴ sent out of the United States up to 1852, 2,720 were born free, 204 purchased their freedom, 3,868 were emancipated in view of removing them to Liberia, and 1,044 were liberated Africans sent out by the United States Government. When we consider the fact that there were 434,495⁸⁵ free persons of color in the United States in 1850 and 488,070 in 1860, this element of the population had not been materially decreased by the efforts of the American Colonization Society.

Louis R. Mehlinger

Documents

Reviews of Books

Notes

"That the idea of a 'Secretary of Peace' for the United States is no new thing was brought out in the course of a paper by P. Lee Phillips, read by President Allen C. Clark before the Columbia Historical Society, which met at the Shoreham Hotel last night.

"In the course of the paper, entitled 'The Negro, Benjamin Banneker, Astronomer and Mathematician,' it was brought out that Banneker, who was a free Negro, friend of Washington and Jefferson, published a series of almanacs, unique in that they were his own work throughout. In the almanac for 1793 one of the articles from Banneker's pen was 'A Plan of Peace Office for the United States,' for promoting and preserving perpetual peace. This article was concise and well written, and contains most of the ideas set forth today by advocates of peace. Banneker took a 'crack' at European military ideas, and advocated the abolishment in the United States of military dress and titles and all militia laws. He laid down laws for the construction of a great temple of peace in which hymns were to be sung each day.

"Mr. Phillips's paper brought out that Banneker helped in one of the early surveys of the District of Columbia."--Washington Star.

This dissertation will be brought out in the Annual Publication of the Columbia Historical Society.

Professor Alain Leroy Locke, of Howard University, has published an interesting prospectus of his lectures on the race problem.

Professor A. E. Jenks, of the University of Minnesota, has contributed to the American Journal of Sociology an elaborate paper on the legal status of the miscegenation of the white and black races in the various commonwealths.

Miss L. E. Wilkes, of the Washington Public Schools, has been lecturing on "Missing Pages of American History." This is a summary of her work treating the Negro soldier from the Colonial Period through the War of 1812. The treatise will be published in the near future.

In the Church Missionary Review has appeared "A Survey of Islam in Africa," by G. T. Manley.

An article entitled "The Bantu Coast Tribes of East Africa Protectorate," by A. Werner, has been published in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. In the same Journal has appeared also "The Organization and Laws of Some Bantu Tribes in East Africa."

Ashanti Proverbs, translated by R. Sutherland Rattray, with a preface by Sir Hugh Clifford, has been published by Milford in London.

A. Werner has published in London "The Language Families of Africa," a concise and valuable textbook of the classification, philology, and grammar of the languages.

The German African Empire, by A. F. Calvert, has appeared over the imprint of Werner Laurie.

The History of South Africa from 1795 to 1872, by G. McCall Theal, has been published in London by Allen and Unwin. This is a fourth and revised edition of a work to be completed in five volumes.

"The Tropics," by C. R. Enock, has been brought out by Grant Richards. This is a description of all tropical countries. It contains some valuable information but is chiefly concerned with advancing the theory that it is essential to study the capabilities of a country so as to develop all of its industries. The contention of the author is that the economic independence of each country is its safeguard from war and that commercialism is ruin.

The Methodist Book Concern has announced "Pioneering on the Congo," by John Springer.

Hodder and Stoughton have published "Mary Slessor of Calabar: Pioneer Missionary." This is an account of a factory girl who distinguished herself as a missionary and was later appointed head of a native court.

French Memories of Eighteenth Century America, by Charles H. Sherrill, has been published by Scribners. He failed to take into account the many references of French travelers to the Negroes and slavery.

In the second number of Smith College Studies in History appears Laura J. Webster's Operations of the Freedmen's Bureau in South Carolina.

About the middle of July the Neale Publishing Company will bring out The New Negro, His Political, Civil and Mental Status, by Dean William Pickens, of Morgan College.

Professor Sherwood, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, has for some time been making researches into Paul Cuffee.

AN INTERESTING COMMENT

Dear Sir:

It was very good of you to mail me a copy of the Journal of Negro History. I had seen a copy of this publication, I believe, at the library of the Institute of Jamaica. The second number is certainly an impressive issue indicative of the changed point of view. The so-called literature on slavery and the negro is, in the main, rather a hindrance than a help. The expression of mere personal opinion is of exceedingly slight value in the furtherance of any good cause. What the world needs is not mere knowledge but a better understanding of the facts and experience already available. When a race has reached a point where it realizes its own place in history, and the value of a critical analysis of its historical experience, a measurable advance has been made towards the attainment of a genuine progress. All values are relative. True history concerns itself with any and all achievements and not merely with political changes or military events. Most of the so-called historical disquisitions delivered annually before the American Historical Association fall seriously short in this respect. Ever since Green wrote his first real history of the English people the old-time historian has lost caste among men who are seriously concerned with the urgent solution of present-day problems. Unquestionably, a true political history is of real value, but the social history of mankind is infinitely more important.

The Journal of Negro History seems to meet the foregoing requirements for a social history of the negro race rather than a mere increase in the already voluminous so-called history of the political aspects of slavery reconstruction or reorganization during recent times. The article on the negro soldier in the American revolution is excellent. The prerequisite for a genuine race progress is race pride. For this reason the past achievements of the negro in this or any other country, individually or collectively, are of the utmost teaching value. It is a far cry, apparently, from the very recent high and well deserved promotion of a negro to a commanding position in the army, back to the days of the service rendered by negro soldiers in the Revolution, but in its final analysis it is all a chain of connected events. Where so much has been done and is being achieved the outlook for the future must needs be encouraging. Progress is only made by struggling, and the best results are those achieved against apparently insuperable difficulties. Race progress and race pride are practically equivalent terms. Individuals and races fail in proportion as they permit discouraging circumstances or conditions to control their destinies. A true philosophy of history never fails to bring home the conviction that lasting success is attained only through the ages by persistent effort in the right direction. The negro race has reason to be proud of its achievements, but I am sure that the future progress will rest largely upon a better understanding of the negro's place in history. Just as in the case of individuals, so in the case of races, it is, first and last, a question of finding our place in the world. Variation in type is absolutely essential to the highest development of the human species. It is not, therefore, the duty of any one race to follow blindly in the footsteps of another. It is for each race to seek for the best traits peculiarly its own, and to leave absolutely nothing undone, in season and out, to develop those particular traits to the highest possible degree. In other words, it is not for the negro to try to be as near as he can to a white man, even in his innermost thoughts and aspirations, but to interpret the lessons of his own life through the philosophy of negro history and to be true to the moral and spiritual ideals of his race and his ancestors, be they what they may.

Very truly yours,

F. L. Hoffman,
Statistician.

The Work of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts Among the Negroes in the Colonies

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was organized in London in the year 1701. During the eighteenth century the British Colonies of the New World constituted the principal field of missionary endeavor for this organization. There were then in North America 250,000 settlers, whole colonies of whom were living in heathenism while others were adhering to almost every variety of strange faiths. The work of proselyting these people was too important to be intrusted to individual enterprise and too extensive to be successfully prosecuted by the heads of the Church only. The ministrations of the Established Church were then limited to a few places in Virginia, New York, Maryland and the cities of Boston and Philadelphia. To supply this deficiency the Society endeavored to use missionaries as a direct means to convert the heathen of all races, whether Europeans, Indians or Negroes. There were cruel masters who objected to the conversion of their slaves,¹ but that any race should be denied the message of salvation because of its color was ever repudiated by the Society. From the very beginning of this work the conversion of the Negroes was as important to the Society as that of bringing the whites or the Indians into the church. Such dignitaries of the church, as Rev. Thomas Bacon and Bishops Fleetwood, Lowth, Sanderson and Wilson, ever urged this duty upon their brethren at home and abroad.²

The first really effective work of the Society was done in South Carolina. Reverend Mr. Thomas of Goose Creek Parish in that State early instructed the Indian and Negro slaves of his vicinity. He directed his attention to the Negroes in 1695 and ten years later counted among his communicants twenty blacks, who with several others "well understanding the English tongue," could read and write. He further said, in 1705: "I have here presumed to give an account of one thousand slaves so far as they know of it and are desirous of Christian knowledge and seem willing to prepare themselves for it, in learning to read, for which they redeem the time from their labor. Many of them can read the Bible distinctly and great numbers of them were learning when I left the province."³

This work, however, had not proceeded without much opposition. The sentiment as to the enlightenment of the blacks was largely that of the youth who resolved never to go to the holy table while slaves were received there. Others felt like the lady who inquired: "Is it possible that any of my slaves should go to heaven, and must I see them there?"⁴ The earnest workers sent out by the Society, however, did not cease to labor in behalf of the Negroes and the number of masters willing to have their slaves instructed gradually increased. Among these liberal owners were John Morris, of St. Bartholomew's, Lady Moore, Captain David Davis, Mrs. Sarah Baker at Goose Creek, Landgrave Joseph Morton and his wife of St. Paul's, the Governor and a member of the Assembly, Mr. and Mrs. Skeen,⁵ Mrs. Haigue and Mrs. Edwards. So successful were the efforts of Mrs. Haigue and Mrs. Edwards that they were formally thanked by the Society for their care and good example in instructing the Negroes of whom no less than twenty-seven prepared by them, including those of another planter, were baptized by the Reverend E. Taylor of St. Andrew's within two years.⁶

Other less liberal masters refused to allow their slaves to attend Mr. Taylor for instruction, but some of them were induced to teach the blacks the Lord's Prayer. The result even from this was so successful that there came to the church more Negroes than could be accommodated. So great was their desire for instruction that had it not been for the opposition of their owners, almost all of them would have been converted. "So far as the missionaries were permitted," says one, "they did all that was possible for their evangelization, and while so many professed Christians among the planters were lukewarm, it pleased God to raise to himself devout servants among the heathen, whose faithfulness was commended by the masters themselves. In some of the congregations the Negroes or blacks constituted one half of the communicants."⁷

This interest of the clergy in the Negroes of South Carolina continued in spite of opposition. Rev. Mr. Guy, of St. Andrew's Parish, said that he baptized "a Negro man and a Negro woman" in 1723, and Rev. Mr. Hunt, minister of St. John's Parish, reported in that same year that "a slave, a sensible Negro, who can read and write and comes to church, is a Catechumen under probation for Baptism which he desires."⁸ A new impetus too was given the movement about 1740. Influenced by such urgent addresses as those of Dr. Brearcroft, and Bishops Gibson, Wilson and Seeker, the workers of the Society were aroused to proselyting more extensively among the Negroes. In 1741 the Bishop of Canterbury expressed his gratification at the large number of Negroes who were then being brought into the church.⁹

A decided step forward was noted in 1743. That year a school for Negroes was opened by Commissary Garden and placed in charge of Harry and Andrew, two colored youths, who had been trained as teachers at the cost of the Society. This establishment was a sort of training school for bright young blacks who felt called to instruct their fellow countrymen. For adults who labored during the day it was an evening school. It was successfully conducted for more than twenty years. In 1763 the institution was for some unknown reason closed after being conducted in the face of many difficulties and obstructions, although this was the only educational institution in that colony for its 50,000 blacks.¹⁰

Some good results were obtained by the missionaries of the Society of North Carolina, but difficulties were also encountered there. The chief trouble seems to have been that missionaries of that colony were "frustrated by the slave owners who would by no means permit" their Negroes to be baptized, "having a false notion that a christened slave is by law free."¹¹ "By much importunity," says an investigator, Mr. Ransford of Chowan (in 1712) prevailed on Mr. Martin to let him baptize three of his Negroes, two women and a boy. "All the arguments I could make use of," said he, "would scarce effect it till Bishop Fleetwood's sermon (in 1711) ... turned ye scale."¹² Mr. Rumford succeeded, however, in baptizing upwards of forty Negroes in one year. In the course of time, when the workers overcame the prejudice of the masters, a missionary would sometimes baptize fifteen to twenty-four in a month, forty to fifty in six months, and sixty to seventy in a year.¹³ Reverend Mr. Newman, a minister in North Carolina, reported in 1723 that he had baptized two Negroes who could say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and gave good sureties for their further information.¹⁴ According to the report of Rev. C. Hall, the number of conversions there among Negroes for eight years was 355, including 112 adults, and "at Edenton the blacks generally were induced to attend service at all these stations, where they behaved with great decorum."¹⁵

In the Middle and Southern Colonies these missionaries had the cooperation of Dr. Thomas Bray. In 1696 he was sent to Maryland by the Bishop of London to do what he could toward the conversion of adult Negroes and the education of their children.¹⁶ Bray's most influential supporter was M. D'Alone, the private secretary of King William. D'Alone gave for the maintenance of the cause a fund, the proceeds of which were first used to employ catechists, and later to support the Thomas Bray Mission after the catechists had failed to give satisfaction. At the death of this missionary the task was taken up by certain of his followers known as the "Associates of Dr. Bray."¹⁷ They extended their work beyond the bounds of Maryland. These benefactors maintained two schools for the benefit of Negroes in Philadelphia. About the close of the French and Indian War, Rev. Mr. Stewart, a missionary in North Carolina, found there a school for the education of Indians and Negroes conducted by "Dr. Bray's Associates."¹⁸

Georgia too was not neglected. The extension of the work of Dr. Bray's associates into the colony made an opening there for taking up the instruction of Negroes. The Society joined with these workers for supporting a schoolmaster for Negroes in 1751 and an improvement in the slaves was soon admitted by their owners.¹⁹ In 1766 Rev. S. Frink, a missionary toiling in Augusta, found that he could neither convert the Indians nor the whites, who seemed to be as destitute of religion as the former, but succeeded in converting some Negroes.²⁰

In Pennsylvania the missionary movement found less obstacles to the conversion of Negroes than to that of the Indians. In fact, the proselyting of Negroes in the colony was less difficult than in some other parts of America. The reports of the missionaries show that slaves were being baptized there as early as 1712.²¹ About this time a Mr. Yeates, of Chester, was commended by the Rev. G. Ross "for his endeavors to train up the Negroes in the knowledge of religion."²² Moved by the appeal of the Bishop of London, other masters permitted the indoctrination of their slaves in the principles of Christianity. At Philadelphia the Rev. G. Ross baptized on one occasion 12 adult Negroes, "who were examined before the congregation and answered to the admiration of all who heard them.... The like sight had never been seen before in that church."²³ Rev. Mr. Beckett, minister in Sussex County, Pennsylvania, said in 1723 that he had admitted two Negro slaves and that many Negroes constantly attended his services.²⁴ The same year Rev. Mr. Bartow baptized a Negro at West Chester.²⁵ Rev. Mr. Pugh, a missionary at Appoquinimmick, Pennsylvania, said, in a letter written to the Society in 1737, that he had received a few blacks and that the masters of the Negroes were prejudiced against their being Christians.²⁶ Rev. Richard Locke christened eight Negroes in one family at Lancaster in 1747 and another Negro there the following year.^26a In 1774 the Rev. Mr. Jenney reported that there was "a great and daily increase of Negroes in this city who would with joy attend upon a catechist for instruction"; that he had baptized several, but was unable to add to his other duties; and the Society, ever ready to lend a helping hand to such pious undertakings, appointed the Rev. W. Sturgeon as catechist for the Negroes at Philadelphia.²⁷ The next to show diligence in the branch of the work of the Society was Mr. Neill of Dover. He baptized as many as 162 within 18 months.²⁸

The operations of the Society did not seem to cover a large part of New Jersey. The Rev. Mr. Lindsay wrote of the baptizing of a Negro at Allerton in 1736.²⁹ The reports from the missions of New Brunswick show that a large number of Negroes had attached themselves to the church. This condition, however, did not obtain in all parts of that colony. Yet subsequent reports show that the missionary spirit was not wanting in that section. The baptism of black children and the accession of Negro adults to the church were from time to time reported from that field.³⁰

The most effective work of the Society among Negroes of the Northern colonies was accomplished in New York. In that colony, the instruction of the Negro and Indian slaves to prepare them for conversion, baptism, and communion was a primary charge oft repeated to every missionary and schoolmaster of the Society. In addition to the general efforts put forth in the colonies, there was in New York a special provision for the employment of sixteen clergymen and thirteen lay teachers mainly for the evangelization of the slaves and the free Indians. For the Negro slaves a catechizing school was opened in New York City in 1704 under the charge of Elias Neau. This benevolent man, after several years' imprisonment because of his Protestant faith, had come to New York to try his fortunes as a trader. As early as 1703 he called the attention of the Society to the great number of slaves in New York "who were without God in the world, and of whose souls there was no manner of care taken"³¹ and proposed the appointment of a catechist to undertake their instruction. He himself finally being prevailed upon to accept this position, obtained a license from the Governor, resigned his position as elder in the French church and conformed to the Established Church of England, "not upon any worldly account but through a principle of conscience and hearty approbation of the English liturgy."³² He was later licensed by the Bishop of London.

Neau's task was not an easy one. At first he went from house to house, but afterwards arranged for some of the slaves to attend him. He succeeded, however, in obtaining gratifying results. He was commended to the Society by Rev. Mr. Vesey in 1706 as a "constant communicant of our church, and a most zealous and prudent servant of Christ, in proselyting the miserable Negroes and Indians among them to the Christian Religion, whereby he does great service to God and his church."³³ Further confidence in him was attested by an act of the Society in preparing at his request "a Bill to be offered to Parliament for the more effectual Conversion of the Negro and other Servants in the Plantations, to compell Owners of Slaves to cause children to be baptized within 3 months after their birth and to permit them when come to years of discretion to be instructed in the Christian Religion on our Lord's day by the Missionaries under whose ministry they live."³⁴

Neau's school suffered greatly in 1712 because of the prejudice engendered by the declaration that instruction was the main cause of the Negro riot in that city. For some days Neau dared not show himself, so bitter was the feeling of the masters. Upon being assured, however, that only one Negro connected with the school had participated in the affair and that the most criminal belonged to the masters who were openly opposed to educating them, the institution was permitted to continue its endeavors, and the Governor extended to it his protection and recommended that masters have their slaves instructed.³⁵ Yet Neau had still to complain thereafter of the struggle and opposition of the generality of the inhabitants, who were strongly prejudiced with a horrid motive thinking that Christian knowledge "would be a means to make the slave more cunning and apter to wickedness."³⁶ Not so long thereafter, however, the support of the best people and officials of the community made his task easier. Neau could say in 1714 that "if the slaves and domestics in New York were not instructed it was not his fault."³⁷ The Governor, the Council, Mayor, the Recorder and the Chief Justice informed the Society that Neau had performed his work "to the great advancement of religion in general and the particular benefit of the free Indians, Negro slaves, and other Heathens in those parts, with indefatigable zeal and application."³⁸

Neau died in 1722. His work was carried on by Mr. Huddlestone, Rev. Mr. Whitmore, Rev. Mr. Colgan, Rev. R. Charlton, and Rev. S. Auchmutty. From 1732 to 1740 Mr. Charlton baptized 219 slaves and frequently thereafter the number admitted yearly was from 40 to 60.³⁹ The great care exercised in preparing slaves for the church was rewarded by the spiritual knowledge which in some cases was such as might have put to shame many persons who had had greater advantages. Rev. Mr. Auchmutty, who served from 1747 to 1764, reported that there was among the Negroes an ever-increasing desire for instruction and "not one single Black" that had been "admitted by him to the Holy Communion" had "turned out bad or been in any shape a disgrace to our holy Profession."⁴⁰

The interest in the enlightenment of Negroes too extended also to other parts of the colony. In 1737 Rev. Mr. Stoupe wrote of baptizing four black children at New Rochelle.⁴¹ Mr. Charlton had taken upon himself at New Windsor the task of instructing these unfortunates before he entered upon the work in New York City. At Staten Island too he found it both practical and convenient "to throw into one the classes of his white and black catechumens."⁴² Rev. Charles Taylor, a schoolmaster at that place, kept a night school "for the instruction of Negroes, and of such as" could not "be spared from their work in the day time."⁴³ Rev. J. Sayre, of Newburgh, followed the same plan of coeducation of the races in each of the four churches under his charge.⁴⁴ Rev. T. Barclay, an earnest worker among the slaves in Albany, reported in 1714 "a great forwardness" among them to embrace Christianity "and a readiness to receive instruction."⁴⁵ He found much opposition among certain masters, chief among whom were Major M. Schuyler and his brother-in-law Petrus Vandroffen. Sixty years later came the report from Schenectady that there were still to be found several Negro slaves of whom 11 were sober, serious communicants.⁴⁶

These missionaries met with more opposition than encouragement in New England. The Puritan had no serious objection to seeing the Negroes saved, but when the conversion meant the incorporation of the undesirable class into the state, then so closely connected with the church, many New Englanders became silent. This opposition, however, was not effective everywhere. From Bristol, Rev. J. Usher wrote in 1730 that several Negroes desired baptism and were able "to render a very good account of the hope that was in them," but he was forbidden by their masters to comply with the request. Yet he reported the same year that among others he had in his congregation "about 30 Negroes and Indians," most of whom joined "in the public service very decently."⁴⁷ At Newtown, where greater opposition was encountered, Rev. J. Beach seemed to have baptized by 1733 many Indians and a few Negroes.⁴⁸ The Rev. Dr. Cutler, a missionary at Boston, wrote to the Society in 1737 that among those he had admitted to his church were four Negro slaves.⁴⁹ Endeavoring to do more than to effect nominal conversions, Doctor Johnson, while at Stratford, had catechetical lectures during the summer months of 1751, attended by many Negroes and some Indians, as well as whites, "about 70 or 80 in all." And said he: "As far as I can find, where the Dissenters have baptized 2, if not 3 or 4 Negroes or Indians, I have four or five communicants."⁵⁰ Dr. Macsparran conducted at Narragansett a class of 70 Indians and Negroes whom he frequently catechized and instructed before the regular service.⁵¹ Rev. J. Honyman, of Newport, had in his congregation more than 100 Negroes who "constantly attended the Publick Worship."⁵²

It appears then that the Negroes were instructed by the missionaries in all of the colonies except some remote parts of New England, Virginia and Maryland. The Established Church had workers among the white persons in those colonies but they did not always direct their attention to the slaves. This does not mean, however, that the slaves in those parts were entirely neglected. There were at work other agencies to bring them to the light. And so on it continued until the outbreak of the Revolution, when the work of these missionaries was impeded and in most cases brought to a close.

C. E. Pierre

People of Color in Louisiana

Part I

The title of a possible discussion of the Negro in Louisiana presents difficulties, for there is no such word as Negro permissible in speaking of this State. The history of the State is filled with attempts to define, sometimes at the point of the sword, oftenest in civil or criminal courts, the meaning of the word Negro. By common consent, it came to mean in Louisiana, prior to 1865, slave, and after the war, those whose complexions were noticeably dark. As Grace King so delightfully puts it, "The pure-blooded African was never called colored, but always Negro." The gens de couleur, colored people, were always a class apart, separated from and superior to the Negroes, ennobled were it only by one drop of white blood in their veins. The caste seems to have existed from the first introduction of slaves. To the whites, all Africans who were not of pure blood were gens de couleur. Among themselves, however, there were jealous and fiercely-guarded distinctions: "griffes, briqués, mulattoes, quadroons, octoroons, each term meaning one degree's further transfiguration toward the Caucasian standard of physical perfection."¹

Negro slavery in Louisiana seems to have been early influenced by the policy of the Spanish colonies. De las Casas, an apostle to the Indians, exclaimed against the slavery of the Indians and finding his efforts of no avail proposed to Charles V in 1517 the slavery of the Africans as a substitute.² The Spaniards refused at first to import slaves from Africa, but later agreed to the proposition and employed other nations to traffic in them.³ Louisiana learned from the Spanish colonies her lessons of this traffic, took over certain parts of the slave regulations and imported bondmen from the Spanish West Indies. Others brought thither were Congo, Banbara, Yaloff, and Mandingo slaves.⁴

People of color were introduced into Louisiana early in the eighteenth century. In 1708, according to the historian, Gayarré, the little colony of Louisiana, at the point on the Gulf of Mexico now known as Biloxi, in the present State of Mississippi, had been in existence nine years. In 1708, the population of the colony did not exceed 279 persons. The land about this region is particularly sterile, and the colonists were little disposed to undertake the laborious task of tilling the soil. Indian slavery was attempted but found unprofitable and exceedingly precarious. So Bienville, lacking the sympathy of De las Casas for the Indians, wrote his government to obtain the authorization of exchanging Negroes for Indians with the French West Indian islands. "We shall give," he said, "three Indians for two Negroes. The Indians, when in the islands, will not be able to run away, the country being unknown to them, and the Negroes will not dare to become fugitives in Louisiana, because the Indians would kill them."⁵

Bienville's suggestion seems not to have met with a very favorable reception. Yet, in 1712, the King of France granted to Anthony Crozat the exclusive privilege for fifteen years of trading in all that immense territory which, with its undefined limits, France claimed as Louisiana. Among other privileges granted Crozat were those of sending, once a year, a ship to Africa for Negroes.⁶ When the first came, is not known, but in 1713 twenty of these Negro slaves from Africa are recorded in the census of the little colony on the Mississippi.⁷

In 1717 John Law flashed meteor-wise across the world with his huge scheme to finance France out of difficulty with his Mississippi Bubble. Among other considerations mentioned in the charter for twenty-five years, which he obtained from the gullible French government, was the stipulation that before the expiration of the charter, he must transport to Louisiana six thousand white persons, and three thousand Negroes, not to be brought from another French colony. These slaves, so said the charter, were to be sold to those inhabitants who had been two years in the colony for one half cash and the balance on one year's credit. The new inhabitants had one or two years' credit granted them.⁸ In the first year, the Law Company transported from Africa one thousand slaves, in 1720 five hundred, the same number the next March, and by 1721 the pages of legal enactments in the West Indies were being ransacked for precedents in dealing with this strange population. But of all these slaves who came to the colony by June, 1721, but six hundred remained. Many had died, some had been exported. In 1722, therefore, the Mississippi Company was under constraint to pass an edict prohibiting the inhabitants of Louisiana from selling their slaves for transportation out of the colony, to the Spaniards, or to any other foreign nation under the penalty of the fine of a thousand livres and the confiscation of the Negroes.⁹

But already the curse of slavery had begun to show its effects. The new colony was not immoral; it may best be described as unmoral. Indolence on the part of the masters was physical, mental and moral. The slave population began to lighten in color, and increase out of all proportion to the importation and natural breeding among themselves. La Harpe comments in 1724 upon the astonishing diminution of the white population and the astounding increase of the colored population.¹⁰ Something was undoubtedly wrong, according to the Caucasian standard, and it has remained wrong to our own day.¹¹ The person of color was now, in Louisiana, a part of its social system, a creature to be legislated for and against, a person lending his dark shade to temper the inartistic complexion of his white master. Now he began to make history, and just as the trail of his color persisted in the complexion of Louisiana, so the trail of his personal influence continued in the history of the colony, the territory and the State.

Bienville, the man of far-reaching vision, saw the danger menacing the colony, and before his recall and disgrace before the French court, he published, in 1724, the famous Black Code.¹² This code followed the order of that of the West Indies but contains some provisions to meet local needs. The legal status of the slave was that of movable property of his master. Children born of Negro parents followed the condition of their mother. Slaves were forbidden to carry weapons. Slaves of different masters could not assemble in crowds by day or night. They were not permitted to sell "commodities, provisions, or produce" without permission from their masters, and had no property which did not belong to their masters. Neither free-born blacks nor slaves were allowed to receive gifts from whites. They could not exercise such public functions as arbitrator or expert, could not be partners to civil or criminal suits, could not give testimony except in default of white people, and could never testify against their masters. If a slave struck his master or one of the family so as to produce a bruise or shedding blood in the face, he had to be put to death. Any runaway slave who continued to be so from the day his master "denounced" him suffered the penalty of having his ears cut off and being branded on his shoulder with a fleur-de-lis. For a second offence the penalty was to hamstring the fugitive and brand him on the other shoulder. For the third such offence he suffered death. Freed or free-born Negroes who gave refuge to fugitive slaves had to pay 30 livres for each day of retention and other free persons 10 livres a day. If the freed or free-born Negroes were not able to pay the fine, they could be reduced to the condition of slaves and sold as such.

The slaves were socially ostracized. Marriage of whites with slaves was forbidden, as was also the concubinage of whites and manumitted or free-born blacks with slaves. The consent of the parents of a slave to his marriage was not required. That of the master was sufficient, but a slave could not be forced to marry against his will.

There were, however, somewhat favorable provisions which made this code seem a little less rigorous. The slaves had to be well fed and the masters could not force them to provide for themselves by working for their own account certain days of the week and slaves could give information against their owners, if not properly fed or clothed. Disabled slaves had to be sent to the hospital. Husbands, wives, and their children under the age of puberty could not be seized and sold separately when belonging to the same master. The code forbade the application of the rack to slaves, under any pretext, on private authority, or mutilation of a limb, under penalty of confiscation of the slave and criminal prosecution of the master. The master was allowed, however, to have his slave put in irons and whipped with rods or ropes. The code commanded officers or justices to prosecute masters and overseers who should kill or mutilate slaves, and to punish the murder according to the atrocity of the circumstance.

Other provisions were still more favorable. The slaves had to be instructed in the Catholic religion. Slaves appointed by their masters as tutors to their children were held set free. Moreover, manumitted slaves enjoyed the same rights, privileges and immunities that were enjoyed by those born free. "It is our pleasure," reads the document, "that their merit in having acquired their freedom shall produce in their favor, not only with regard to their persons, but also to their property, the same effects that our other subjects derive from the happy circumstance of their having been born free."¹³

From the first appearance of the gens de couleur in the colony of Louisiana dates the class, the gens de couleur libres. The record of the legal tangles which resulted from the attempts to define this race in Louisiana is most interesting. Up to 1671, all Creoles, Mulattoes, free Negroes, etc., paid a capitation tax. In February 12 of that year, M. de Baas, Governor-General of Martinique, issued an order exempting the Creoles. Those Mulattoes who were also designated as Creoles claimed the same exemption and resisted paying the tax. M. Patoulet, Intendent, rendered a decision in 1683 and said: "The Mulattoes and free Negroes claimed to be exempt from the capitation tax: I have made them pay without difficulty. I decide that those Mulattoes born in vice should not receive the exemption, and that for the free Negro, the master could give him freedom but could not give him the exemption that attaches to the whites originally from France."¹⁴ The next year, the Mulattoes refused to pay, and the successor of Minister Patoulet, M. Michel Begou, asked for a law to compel them.¹⁵ In 1696, an agreement was reached exempting the Mulattoes and Creoles, leaving only the free black subject to the tax.¹⁶ But in 1712, a M. Robert, in a decision on a subject, again included the Mulattoes, without, however, mentioning the Creoles, so that only the free Negroes and Mulattoes paid.¹⁷ Thus they were held as a class apart. A free Negro woman, Magdelaine Debern, further contested the matter, and in 1724, in the colony of Louisiana, won a decision exempting free Negroes and Mulattoes, and again placing them on the same footing with the Creole. The Creoles had a decided advantage, however, because through the favor of those in authority, there was always a disposition to exalt them.¹⁸

It is in the definition of the word Creole that another great difficulty arises. The native white Louisianian will tell you that a Creole is a white man, whose ancestors contain some French or Spanish blood in their veins. But he will be disputed by others, who will gravely tell you that Creoles are to be found only in the lower Delta lands of the state, that there are no Creoles north of New Orleans; and will raise their hands in horror at the idea of being confused with the "Cajans," the descendants of those Nova Scotians whom Longfellow immortalized in Evangeline. Sifting down the mass of conflicting definitions, it appears that to a Caucasian, a Creole is a native of the lower parishes of Louisiana, in whose veins some traces of Spanish, West Indian or French blood runs.¹⁹ The Caucasian will shudder with horror at the idea of including a person of color in the definition, and the person of color will retort with his definition that a Creole is a native of Louisiana, in whose blood runs mixed strains of everything un-American, with the African strain slightly apparent. The true Creole is like the famous gumbo of the state, a little bit of everything, making a whole, delightfully flavored, quite distinctive, and wholly unique.

From 1724 to the present time, frequent discussions as to the proper name by which to designate this very important portion of the population of Louisiana waged more or less acrimoniously.²⁰ It was this Creole element who in 1763 obtained a decision from Louis XV that all mixed bloods who could claim descent from an Indian ancestor in addition to a white outranked those mixed bloods who had only white and African ancestors.²¹ In Jamaica, in 1733, there was passed a law that every person who could show that he was three degrees removed from a Negro ancestor should be regarded as belonging to the white race, and could sit as a member of the Jamaica Assembly.²² In Barbadoes, any person who had a white ancestor could vote. These laws were quoted in Louisiana and influenced legislation there.²³

Gov. Perier succeeded Bienville as Governor of Louisiana. His task was not a light one; the colony staggered under "terror of attack from the Indians, sudden alarms, false hopes, anxious suspense, militia levies, colonial paper, instead of good money, industrial stagnation, the care of homeless refugees, and worst of all, the restiveness of the slaves. The bad effects of slave-holding began to show themselves." Many of the slaves had been taken in war, and were fierce and implacable. Some were of that fiercest of African tribes, the Banbaras. A friendliness, born of common hatred and despair, began to show itself between the colored people and the fierce Choctaw Indians surrounding the colony, when Gov. Perier planned a master-stroke of diplomacy. Just above New Orleans lived a small tribe of Indians, the Chouchas, who, not particularly harmful in themselves, had succeeded in inspiring the nervous inhabitants of the city with abject fear. Perier armed a band of slaves in 1729 and sent them to the Chouchas with instructions to exterminate the tribe. They did their work with an ease and dispatch that should have been a warning to their white masters. In reporting the success of his plan Perier said: "The Negroes executed their mission with as much promptitude as secrecy. This lesson taught them by our Negroes, kept in check all the nations higher up the river."²⁴ Thus, by one stroke the wily Governor had intimidated the tribes of Indians, allayed the nervous fears of New Orleans, and effected a state of hostility between the Indians and the Africans, who were beginning to be entirely too friendly with each other. Then Perier used the slaves to make the entrenchments about the city. Thus we have the first instance of the arming of the Negro in Louisiana for the defense of the colony. On the 15th of January, 1730, Gov. Perier sent a boat containing twenty white men and six Africans to carry ammunition to the Illinois settlement up the Mississippi river whence tales of massacre and cruelty by the Indians filtered down.²⁵

The arming of the slaves in defense of the whites gave impetus to the struggle for their own freedom. In the massacre of the French by the Natchez, at the village of that name, over three hundred women and slaves were kept as prisoners, and in January of the same year which witnessed the massacre of the Chouchas, the French surprised the Natchez Indians with the intention of recovering their women and slaves, and avenging the death of their comrades. Some of the Africans who had been promised their freedom if they allied themselves with the Natchez Indians, fought against their erstwhile masters, others were loyal, and helped the French. The battle became an issue, as it were, between the slaves. Over one hundred of them were recovered from the Indians.²⁶

The first tribute we have paid to the black man as a soldier in Louisiana was paid by Gov. Perier in this war in his dispatch to the French government. "Fifteen negroes," he wrote, "in whose hands we had put weapons, performed prodigies of valor. If the blacks did not cost so much, and if their labors were not so necessary to the colony, it would be better to turn them into soldiers, and to dismiss those we have, who are so bad and so cowardly that they seem to have been manufactured purposely for this colony."²⁷

But the tiger had tasted blood. Perier's cruel logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races, the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men. In August of that same fateful year, the Chickasaws, who had given asylum to the despoiled Natchez in order to curb the encroachments of the white men, stirred the black slaves to revolt. We have noted before the prevalence of the Banbara Negroes in the colony. It was they who planned the rebellion. Their plan was, after having butchered the whites, to establish a Banbara colony, keeping as slaves for themselves all blacks not of their nation. The conspiracy was discovered by the hints of a woman in the revolt before it had time to ripen, and the head of the revolt, a powerful black named Samba with eight of his confederates was broken on the wheel, and the woman hanged.²⁸

Gov. Perier's administration did not lack interest. The next year, in 1731, we find him still struggling with his old enemies, the Natchez. His dispatches mention that a crew under one De Coulanges, with Indians and free blacks had been massacred by the Indians. One dispatch has the greatest interest for us, because of the expression "free blacks"²⁹ used. Here is one of the great mysteries of the person of color in Louisiana. Whence the free black? We are told explicitly that up to this time all Negroes imported into Louisiana were slaves from Africa, for the West Indian migration did not occur until a half century later. This dispatch from Gov. Perier recalls articles in the Black Code of 1724, where explicit directions are given for the disposition of the children of free blacks. In the regulations of police under the governorship of the Marquis of Vandreuil, 1750, there is an article regulating the attitude of free Negroes and Negresses toward slaves. Here is the very beginning of that aristocracy of freedom so fiercely and jealously guarded until this day, a free person of color being set as far above his slave fellows as the white man sets himself above the person of color. Three explanations for this aristocracy seem highly probable: Some slaves might have been freed by their masters because of valor on the battlefield, others by buying their freedom in terms of money, and not a few slave women by their owners because of their personal attractions. It makes little difference in this story which of the three or whether all of the three were contributors to the rise of this new class. It existed as early as 1724, twelve years after the first recorded slave importation. It was in 1766 that some Acadians, complaining of their treatment to the Governor Ulloa, represented that Negroes were freemen while they were slaves.

Bienville returned to the colony as its governor in 1733, after an absence of eight years, and it is recorded that in 1735, when he reviewed his troops near Mobile while making preparations for an Indian war, he found that his army from New Orleans consisted of five hundred and forty-four white men, excluding the officers, and forty-five Negroes commanded by free blacks.³⁰ Here we note free black officers of Negro troops in 1735. If not actually the first regular Negro troops to appear in what is now the United States, they were certainly the first to be commanded by Negro officers.

The engagement with the Choctaw Indians was not altogether successful for the French. Disaster succeeded disaster, and the day closed with the French army deeply humiliated, and making a retreat as dignified as possible under the circumstances. A number of the French officers, as Gayarré tells us, stood under the shade of a gigantic oak discussing the defeat, and with them Simon, a free black, the commander of the troop of Negroes. He was deeply vexed because his troops had not stood fire, and expressed himself with so much freedom and disgust, that the French officers kept bantering him without mercy at the timidity of his soldiers, soothing their own wounded pride by laughing at his mortification. Stung to the heart, Simon finally exclaimed wrathfully, "A Negro is as brave as anybody and I will show it to you." Seizing a rope which was dangling from one of the tents, he rushed headlong toward one of the horses which were quietly slaking their thirst under the protection of the Indian muskets. To reach a white mare, to jump on her back with the agility of a tiger, and to twist around her head and mouth the rope with which to control her, was the affair of an instant. But that instant was enough for the apparently sleeping Indian village to show itself awake, and to flash forth into a hail of bullets. Away dashed Simon toward the Indian village, and back to the French camp where he arrived safe amid the cheering acclamations of the troops, and without having received a wound from the shots of the enemy.³¹ This feat silenced at once the jests of the French officers, of which Simon thought himself the victim.³²

The beginning of the Revolutionary war in 1776 found Louisiana a Spanish province and the natives of the colony beginning to tolerate and even to like their erstwhile hated Spanish masters. Don Bernardo de Galvez was governor of the colony. His administration has a peculiar interest to us, because it was during his rule that the Court of Madrid, fully alive to the policy of extending the agriculture of Louisiana, issued a decree permitting the introduction of Negroes into Louisiana by French vessels, from whatever ports they might come.³³ This was the beginning of the rapid migration from the West Indian islands.

While Andrew Jackson was still a child, Louisiana had a deliverer from the British in the person of this brave Gov. Galvez. The strategical importance of the Mississippi River and of New Orleans was at once apparent to the British commanders, and Louisiana, being neutral territory, offered a most fascinating field of operation. Galvez, in July, 1777, had secured declaration of neutrality from the 25,000 or more Creeks, Choctaws and Chickasaws, but even this did not seem to satisfy the combatants. New Orleans was at the mercy of first the American troops and then the British. The mediation of Spain between France and England having been rejected in the courts of Europe, Spain decided to join France in the struggle against Great Britain. So on May 8, 1779, Spain formally declared war against Great Britain, and on July 8 authorized all Spanish subjects in America to take their share in the hostilities against the English. No news could be more welcome to the dashing young Galvez, to whom a policy of neutrality was decidedly distasteful. He decided to forestall the attack on New Orleans, which he had learned was to be made by the British, by attacking first, and on August 26 gathered his little army together. From New Orleans, as Gayarré tells, were 170 veteran soldiers, 330 recruits, 20 carabiniers, 60 militiamen, and 80 free blacks and mulattoes. On the way up the river, they were reinforced by 600 men from the coast of "every condition and color," besides 160 Indians.³⁴

On the march, the colored men and Indians were ordered to keep ahead of the main body of troops, at a distance of about three quarters of a mile, and closely to reconnoitre the woods. In capturing the two forts of Baton Rouge and Natchez, which were held by the British, Galvez found a considerable number of Negro slaves who had been armed by the British. Many of these he set free. In his dispatch to his government at Madrid, Galvez reports that the companies of free blacks and mulattoes, who had been employed in all the false attacks, and who, as scouts and skirmishers, had proved exceedingly useful, behaved on all occasions with as much valor and generosity as the white soldiers.³⁵ But not alone were the exploits of Galvez's little army celebrated in history. Poetry added her laurel wreath to its crown. Julien Poydras de Lalande, known to all Louisianians as Poydras, celebrated the victory in a poem, "The God of the Mississippi," wherein the brave deeds of the army, white and colored, are hailed in French verse, lame and halting, it may be in places, but impartial in its tribute.

The close of the Revolutionary war found the colony partially paralyzed as to industry. During the Spanish domination the indigo industry declined, tobacco was difficult to raise, and the production of cotton was not then profitable. Sugar raising was the only other industry to which they could turn. In 1751 the Jesuit fathers had received their first seed, or rather layers, from Santo Domingo and from that time sugar-cane had been grown with more or less success. But it was a strictly local industry. The Louisianians were poor sugar-makers. The stuff was badly granulated and very moist, and when in 1765 an effort was made to export some of the sugar to France, it was so wet that half of the cargo leaked out of the ship before it could make port. It was just at this psychological moment, in 1791 to 1794, when the planters of the lower Delta saw ruin staring them in the face, that there came to the rescue of the colony a man of color, one of the refugees from Santo Domingo, where the blacks had risen in 1791. From the failure of this abortive attempt to emulate the spirit of the white man, refugees flew in every direction, and Louisiana welcomed them, if not exactly with open arms, at least with more indifference than other colonies. And these black refugees were her saviors. For they had been prosperous sugar-makers, and the efforts to make marketable sugar in Louisiana, which had ceased for nearly twenty-five years, were revived. Two Spaniards, Mendez and Solis, erected on the outskirts of New Orleans, the one a distillery, the other a battery of sugar-kettles, and manufactured rum and syrup. Still, the efforts were not entirely successful, until Etienne de Boré appeared. Face to face with ruin because of the failure of the indigo crop, he staked his all on the granulation of sugar. He enlisted the services of these successful Santo Dominicans, and went to work. In all American history there can be fewer scenes more dramatic than the one described by careful historians of Louisiana, the day when the final test was made and there was passed around the electrical word, "It granulates!"³⁶

That year de Boré marketed $12,000 worth of super or sugar. The agriculture of the Delta was revolutionized; seven years afterwards New Orleans marketed 2,000,000 gallons of rum, 250,000 gallons of molasses, and 5,000,000 pounds of sugar. It was the beginning of the commercial importance of one of the most progressive cities in the country. Imagination refuses to picture what would have been the case but for the refugees from San Domingo.

But the same revolution which gave to Louisiana its prestige to the commercial world, almost starved the province to death. In the year 1791, the trade, which had flourished briskly between Santo Domingo and New Orleans, was closed because of the uprising, and but for Philadelphia, famine would have decimated the city. 1,000 barrels of flour were sent in haste to the starving city by the good Quakers of Philadelphia. The members of the Cabildo, the local council, prohibited the introduction of people of color from Santo Domingo, fearing the dangerous ideas of the brotherhood of man. But it was too late. The news of the success of the slaves in Santo Domingo, and the success of the French Revolution, says Gayarré, had penetrated into the most remote cabins of Louisiana, and in April, 1795, on the plantation of the same Poydras who had sung the glory of the army of Galvez, a conspiracy was formed for a general uprising of the slaves throughout the parish of Pointe Coupée. The leaders were three white men. The conspiracy failed because one of the leaders was incensed at his advice not being heeded and through his wife the authorities were notified. A struggle ensued, and the conspiracy was strangled in its infancy by the trial and execution of the slaves most concerned in the insurrection. The three white men were exiled from the colony.³⁷ This finally ended the importation of slaves from the West Indies.

Alice Dunbar-Nelson

The Defeat of the Secessionists in Kentucky in 1861

The treatment of the Border States in the crisis of 1861 has received from historians the same attention as Saxony, the objective point between Prussia and Austria in the Seven Years' War. Directing special attention to Kentucky requires some explanation. The possession of this commonwealth was for several reasons more important than that of some other border States. The transportation facilities afforded by the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers furnished the key to carrying out the plan to divide the South. The possession of the State by the Confederates was of strategic importance for the invasion of the North too for the reason that the Ordinance of 1787 had been so interpreted as to fix the boundary of Kentucky on the north side of the Ohio River. It was, moreover, the native State of Abraham Lincoln and it was important to have that commonwealth support this untrained backwoodsman whom most statesmen considered incapable of administering the affairs of the nation.

In the beginning, the situation was not the least encouraging to the Unionists. The Breckenridge Democrats had carried the State in 1859 on a platform favoring Southern rights. Their chief spokesman had become such a defender of their faith that in 1860 he was chosen to lead the radically proslavery party which had come to the point of so doubting the orthodoxy of their Northern adherents as to deem it advisable to separate from them. Unalterably in favor of the rights of the slave States, the leaders of this persuasion had expressed themselves in terms that could not be misunderstood.¹ One of their spokesmen Humphrey Marshall contended that slavery is not a creature of municipal law. He believed that the institution followed the flag. He wanted Union but only with that equality which involved the recognition of the right of property in slaves everywhere.² Speaking in the House of Representatives on January 30, 1861, John W. Stephenson, another of this faction, said on the same topic: "Equality underlaid the whole Federal structure, and protection to persons and property within the Federal jurisdiction, was the price of allegiance of the States to such General Government, as delegated and prescribed in the constitution. Wherever the American banner floated upon the seas or land, all beneath it was entitled to the protection of the flag."³

On this question, their leader John C. Breckenridge, "a believer in the old Democratic creed and a supporter of the South and her institutions,"⁴ took the same, if not higher ground. Referring to the Dred Scott decision in a speech delivered in Ashland, Kentucky, in 1859, Breckenridge said: "After this decision we had arrived at a point where we might reasonably expect tranquillity and peace. The equality of rights and property of all the states in the common Territory, having been stamped by the seal of judicial authority, all good citizens might well acquiesce."⁵ When the Southern States seceded because of the threatened infringement of these rights, the President of the United States, according to Breckenridge, had no right to enlist men and no right to blockade the Southern ports, in short, no right to wage war on these commonwealths. Lincoln had thus overthrown constitutional government. If he was trying to preserve the Union, he must do it in a constitutional way. Breckenridge wanted the Union but contended that it would be no good without the Constitution.⁶ To sum up, as Southern Democrats they had helped to disrupt the Charleston Convention, and developing into a strict Southern rights party, they had through bolting made possible the election of Abraham Lincoln. They then finally joined the States' rights party, which, boldly declaring the election of Lincoln a just cause for the dissolution of the Union, undertook to secede.⁷

With such radical leaders in control it might seem strange that, in a State formed from an aristocratic commonwealth like Virginia and extending into the fertile region of the Mississippi, these protagonists of States' rights did not turn Kentucky over to the Confederacy. Exactly what part did the rich slaveholders play during this crisis when the State was called upon to decide the question between the North and South? What was the position of such influential men as James B. Clay, George B. Hodge, Cerro Gordo Williams, T. P. Porter, Roger W. Hansom, and S. B. Buckner?⁸

Other representative citizens, however, had been equally outspoken in favor of the Union. Voicing the sentiment of the Union party, which on the eighth of January met in Louisville to take steps to support the Federal Government, Bell said: "Let us offer everything we can to avert the torrent of evil, but let us always stand ready to support our rights in the Union: the State is deeply and devotedly attached to the Union."⁹ Garrett Davis inquired: "Will you preserve the Union or rush into the vortex of revolution under the name of secession?"¹⁰ J. T. Boyle said in the same convention that there could be no benefit or advantage, no civil or political rights, no interest of any kind whatever, secured by government in the Southern Confederacy which the people did not then enjoy in the "blessed Union formed by our fathers." In his opinion, it was the duty of Kentuckians "to stand by the Star Spangled Banner and cling to the Union."¹¹ Some of the most influential newspapers were fearlessly advocating the Union cause. Among others were the Frankfort Daily Commonwealth, the Louisville Courier and the Democrat.

Exactly what support these leaders of the differing factions would obtain was determined by forces for centuries at work in that State. Southerners who thought that, because Kentucky was a slave State it should go with the South, had failed to take these causes into consideration. In the first place, not every slaveholder was an ardent proslavery agitator. There were masters who like Henry Clay considered slavery an evil and hoped to see it abolished, but while the majority of their fellow countrymen held on to it they did so too. Many Kentuckians, moreover, were like that restless class of Westerners who, dissatisfied with the society based on slavery, had taken up land beyond the mountains, where the poor man could toil up from poverty.¹² Kentucky was the first section west of the Allegheny mountains settled by these daring adventurers because they were there cut off from the North by the French and from the South by the Spanish, and in Kentucky, a section hemmed in by these foreign possessions, the settlers were less liable to be disturbed. And even when the barrier of foreign claims had been removed, the movement of population from the East to the West took place along lines leading to the States later organized in the West rather than into Kentucky. The people of Kentucky, therefore, were not radically changed in a day by the influx of population. On the contrary, many of them, especially the mountaineers, have not changed since the days of Boone and Henderson. Some of them having left the uplands of the colonies because they were handicapped by slavery, were naturally opposed to the bold claims of that institution in 1861. They, like the Westerners, learned to look to the General Government for the establishment of commonwealths, the building of forts, and the maintenance of troops,¹³ and, therefore, adhered to it when it was threatened with destruction.

Another cause, moreover, was equally as potential. In Kentucky as in some other Southern States, there had grown up a considerable number of prosperous country towns, where resided lawyers, merchants, bankers, teachers, and mechanics, who had little property interest in slavery, who felt their own "intellectual superiority to the country squires and their fox-hunting, horse-racing, quarrelsome sons, and who consequently asserted social independence of them and social equality with them."¹⁴ They were hostile to the aristocratic masters, whom they generally denounced as "oligarchs," "slavocrats," "Lords of the Lash," and "Terror Engenders."¹⁵ This mercantile and professional class, inspired by such men as Hinton Rowan Helper, contemplated the removal of the Negroes and the bringing of white laborers into the South.¹⁶

In view of this cleavage, it was difficult in the beginning of the struggle to characterize the situation. There were unconditional Secessionists and unconditional Union men. Judging from the condition then obtaining, no one could tell exactly which way the State would go. "Sympathy, blood, and the community of social feeling growing out of slavery," says one, "inclined her to the South; her political faith which Clay more than any other man had inspired her with and which Crittenden now loyally represented held her fast to the Union."¹⁷ Many of the people, though believing in States' rights, did not think that the grievances of the South were such as to justify secession. At the same time they opposed "coercion," and since a reconstructed Union was impossible they would have solved the difficulty by peaceful separation. Writing to Gen. McClellan June 8, 1861, Garrett Davis said: "The sympathy for the South and the inclination to secession among our people is much stronger in the southwestern corner of the state than it is in any other part, and as you proceed toward the upper section of the Ohio and our Virginia line, it gradually becomes weaker until it is almost wholly lost.... I doubt not that two thirds of our people are unconditionally for the Union. The timid are for it and they shrink from convulsion and civil war, while all the bold, the reckless, and the bankrupt are for secession."¹⁸ This categorical distinction, however, is hardly right. There were Kentuckians of representative families on both sides in all parts of the State except in the extreme West.¹⁹ A careful study of the facts, however, leads one to the conclusion that even in the beginning there were more Unionists than Secessionists. The Unionists, unhappily, were not organized while the Secessionists were led by the State officials, chief among whom was Governor Magoffin.

When the Southern States began to secede Governor Magoffin called a special session of the State legislature, thinking that he could have a secession convention called. He said in part: "I therefore submit to your consideration the propriety of providing for the election of delegates to a convention to be assembled at an early day to which shall be referred for full and final determination the future of the Federal and interstate relations of Kentucky." He further said: "Kentucky will not be an indifferent observer of the force policy. The seceding States have not in their haste and inconsiderate action our approval, but their cause is our right and they have our sympathies. The people of Kentucky will never stand by with folded arms while those States are struggling for their constitutional rights and resisting oppression and being subjugated to an anti-slavery government."²⁰ He believed that the idea of coercion, when applied to great political communities, is revolting to a free people, contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and if successful would endanger the liberties of the people.²¹ But the legislature did not provide for such a convention. On the eleventh of February this body adjourned. It reassembled on the twentieth of March and remained in session until the fourth of April, but still these important matters were not decided. Pursuant to another call of the Governor, it reassembled on the 6th of May and sat until the twenty-fourth of May when it adjourned. On the second of September the legislature elected in August came in, but still the important question as to what should be done hung in the balance. At first there came up the resolutions introduced by George W. Ewing on the twenty-first of January, expressing regret that certain States had furnished men and money for the coercion of the seceded States, and requesting the Governor of Kentucky to notify such States that should attempts be made to coerce these commonwealths, Kentucky would join the South.²² This resolution passed the House but did not pass the whole legislature as so many have said. A resolution for calling a convention to amend the Constitution of the United States was passed.²³ Several distinguished men of Kentucky sat in this convention which was in session from the fourth to the twenty-second of February without accomplishing anything.

The majority of Kentuckians were then neutral. There were two classes of neutrals, however. This was easily possible since neutrality meant one thing to one man and a different thing to another. Each faction looked forward to the adoption of this policy as a victory over the other. The Unionists accepted it as the best policy, not knowing that, taking such a position, they would aid the Confederacy. Even John J. Crittenden had this idea. He said: "If Kentucky and the other border States should assume this attitude, war between the two sections of the country would be averted and the Confederate states after a few years' trial of their experiment would return voluntarily to the Union." ²⁴

Neutrality was considered a necessity for another reason; namely, the expected short duration of the war. No one believed at first that the war would last long. Even Lincoln thought that it would be over in ninety days. Some, therefore, felt that Kentucky would be foolish to cause blood to be shed on her soil when the war could easily be kept out of the State three months. This sentiment, however, must not be misunderstood as evincing a lack of interest in the Union, for in the address declaring for neutrality these same leaders said that the dismemberment of the Union was no remedy for existing evils but an aggravation of them all.²⁵ To many Unionists neutrality meant going slowly in the right direction. It was in keeping with Lincoln's plan not to go so rapidly toward "coercion" in Kentucky as he had in the other border States.

How then did the neutrality policy work out? On the twenty-ninth of January R. T. Jacob introduced in the lower house of the legislature a resolution declaring that the proper position of Kentucky was that of a mediator between the sections, and that as an umpire she would remain firm and impartial in that day of trial to their "beloved country that by counsel and mediation she might aid in restoring peace and harmony and brotherly love." Giving the reasons for adopting such a policy Jacob said:

"This leading sentiment of mediation was indorsed by the Union men of both Houses of the Legislature.... Some may say, why did not the Kentucky Legislature go for coercion? For two reasons: First, some States, it is true had seceded from the Union, but war had not actually commenced: second, the men at that time who would have undertaken to force coercion upon the Legislature would have been in the hopeless minority and would have immediately given a majority to the secessionists. It would have ended in total destruction to the cause of the Union in the State. Those resolutions were for two purposes. In good faith they were intended to compromise all difference between the States, and if possible to restore peace between sections. If that failed, they were intended to hold, if possible, our meagre majority until the people could act and we had no doubt that when they did speak it would be in unmistakable tones for the preservation of the Union."²⁶

No action was taken on these resolutions, but on the eleventh of February there was passed a joint measure, entitled "Resolutions Declaring action by the Legislature on political affairs unnecessary and inexpedient at this time,"²⁷ These resolutions mentioned the great danger which environed the Union, asked the Confederates to stay the work of secession and protested against coercion. The last resolution favored the calling of a convention to amend the Constitution of the United States. Significant too for the Unionists were the last words: "It is unnecessary and inexpedient for the Legislature to take any further action on the subject at the present time, and as an evidence of the sincerity and good faith of our propositions for an adjustment and our expression of devotion to the Union and the desire for its preservation Kentucky awaits with great solicitude the responses from her sister States."²⁸

Neutrality, however, became the accepted policy of so many that it proved to be dangerous. The Union State Committee, in drawing up on the eighteenth of April a resolution to please all, seemingly pledged the State to join the South. These resolutions were severely criticised by the Unionists, especially that part which says: "What the future destiny of Kentucky may be we cannot with certainty foresee. But if the enterprise announced in the proclamation of the President should at any time hereafter assume the aspect of a war for overrunning and subjugation of the seceding States, then Kentucky ought to take her stand for the South." ²⁹ Many thought that this obligated Kentucky to go with the South. Unionists of other States considered it a victory for the Confederacy. This committee, however, stipulated this proposition to satisfy those sympathizers with the South, who believed all the bad reports concerning the functionaries of the Federal Government, circulated by the leaders of the Confederacy. Hence, they said in this proposition not that Kentucky would go with the South, but if at any time thereafter the President's proclamation should assume the aspect of war, it would do so. They evidently did not believe that it had or would assume such an aspect. They were also trying to pacify those who misunderstood the issues of "subjugation" and "coercion."³⁰ The relation of the States to the Union was yet a problem to many a statesman. Many thought that the colonists when in a state of nature came together and agreed to a compact, giving up some of their sovereignty and retaining the other, and, therefore, had the right to withdraw at pleasure, carrying a part of the national property with them. Such thinkers contended too that the Union had no right to "coerce" a seceded State. Calhoun had said that because the Union was a compact it could be broken; on the other hand, Jackson had said that because it was a compact it could not be broken. Now it was difficult for Kentuckians to decide who was right. That the committee had no intention of going with the Confederacy may be seen from the following declaration: "Seditious leaders in the midst of us now appeal to her (Kentucky) to furnish troops to uphold those combinations against the government of the Union. Will she comply with this appeal? Ought she to comply with it? We answer, no."³¹

While these things were going on, the great question of Fort Sumter was before the people. When the fort was finally bombarded and Lincoln called for seventy-five thousand troops Gov. Magoffin politely refused to comply. His reply was: "I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."³² He had already been much moved by the large vote given the delegates to the Border States Convention, indicating such a growth of Union sentiment that he called the legislature together, hoping to win the day for secession by changing the policy of the State from mediatorial to armed neutrality, resisting all forces, whether Confederate or Federal, which might bring war into the State. The body met on the sixteenth of May, passed a resolution of mediatorial neutrality and approved the Governor's refusal to furnish troops under the existing circumstances.³³ This, however, did not mean that the legislature was in sympathy with the efforts of the Governor to support the Southern cause. Writing to Gen. Scott, John J. Crittenden explained it thus:

"The position of Kentucky and the relation she occupies toward the government of the Union is not, I fear, understood at Washington. It ought to be well understood. Very important consequences may depend upon it and upon her proper treatment. Unfortunately for us our Governor does not sympathize with Kentucky in respect to secession. His opinions and feelings incline him strongly to the side of the South. His answer to the requisition for troops was in terms hasty and unbecoming and does not correspond with the usual and gentlemanly courtesy. But while she regretted the language of his answer, Kentucky acquiesced in his declining to furnish the troops called for, and she did so not because she loved the Union less but she feared that if she had parted with those troops and sent them to serve in your ranks, she would have been overwhelmed by secessionists at home, and severed from the Union. And it was to preserve substantially and ultimately our connection with the Union that induced us to acquiesce in the partial infraction of it by our Governor's refusal of the troops required. This was the most prevailing and general motive. To this may be added the strong indisposition of our people to a civil war with the South, and the apprehended consequences of a civil war within our state and among our people.... I think Kentucky's excuse a good one and that under all the circumstances of a complicated case she is rendering better service in her present position than she could by becoming an active party in the contest."³⁴

The fact is that secession had little chance in Kentucky after public opinion found expression. Neutrality early became the order of the day. The elections of 1861 were significant in that they gave the people a chance to express their will. It should be borne in mind that the legislature of 1859 was elected when the question of union or disunion was not before the people. Now in 1861 they had to elect members to the Border State Convention, a new legislature, and congressmen to represent Kentucky at the special session called by President Lincoln. In all these elections, Unionists won. Some historians like Smith and Shaler³⁵ seem to think that the State had pledged itself to remain unconditionally neutral, that these elections had no particular bearing on the situation and that if a "sovereignty convention" had been called, secession would have won. These writers do not seem to see that the people of Kentucky, although nominally neutral, desired to remain with the Union. Doubtless a better statement is that, although the election of 1861 showed that a large majority of the people were in favor of the Union, the Union leaders did not show so in the early part of the year and neutrality was adopted not as an end but as a means that triumph over the enemies of the Union might finally be assured.³⁶ We easily see now that there was not much danger of secession, but the Unionists could not see it so well at that time. Smith and Shaler doubtless exaggerate the situation, for what danger of secession could there have been when the people had elected the Union candidates for the Border State Convention to be convened at Frankfort on May 27, when they sent nine Unionists out of the ten congressmen to represent them in the special session of Congress, and when on the 5th of the following August, after the battle of Bull Run, they elected to the State Legislature 103 Unionists out of 141 members.³⁷ The calling of a convention then would have made little difference, if the people had chosen a majority of Unionists to represent them in other bodies. How can one conclude then that they would have elected seceders to represent them in a "sovereignty convention"? Hodge states that the sympathizers with the Confederacy did not contest to any considerable extent the elections of August, 1861, and consequently the supporters of the Federal Government were in the ascendency in the next legislature. He seems to indicate that the Unionists used fraud, but the records show that the Secessionists, regarding it as a lost cause, in many cases withdrew their candidates. Evidently these elections showed not only that secession was impossible but that neutrality could not last.³⁸

After this sentiment began to change. Men boldly took decisive positions. The unwieldy neutrality party then divided into three parts: those who went to the Confederate lines to aid the Southern cause; those who openly declared themselves in favor of the Union; and those sympathizers with the South, who although in favor of the seceding States, seeing that their cause was hopeless, advocated peaceful separation and finally, when that failed, a compromise peace between the two sections.³⁹ The Union party, though unalterably opposed to the abolitionists and not primarily attached to the Union because of antagonism to slavery, gradually acquiesced in the policy of the Federal Government with respect to that institution. This party first reached the position that Negroes taken from the Confederates could with propriety be disposed of as contraband of war and many of its adherents grew more favorable to the policy of general emancipation.

It was soon evident that war could not long be kept out of the State. As early as April, 1861, troops for service in the Confederacy were organized in Kentucky. This movement was somewhat accelerated by an act of the legislature providing that the arms supplied to the troops should not be used against either section and that the State companies as well as the Home Guards should take the same oath as the officers requiring fidelity to the Constitution.⁴⁰ At this point many Kentuckians of proslavery tendencies were forced out of their natural position and driven into the Confederate ranks. Among these was S. B. Buckner, who went South to command about ten thousand secessionists, recruited under the leadership of Colonels Roger W. Hanson, Lloyd Tilghman, and W. D. Lannon at Camp Boone.⁴¹

The Governor refused to furnish Lincoln troops but he was in touch with the Confederacy, doing all he could to equip soldiers for its service,⁴² though not exactly openly, as that would have been sufficient excuse for the Unionists who desired to help the Union. The Unionists who saw all of this going on desired to arm and organize their forces but they were handicapped in that the commander of the State guard was a Secessionist and care had been taken to hold the military forces for the South. In consequence of this difficulty Lincoln was secretly appealed to for arms, which were shipped to cities on the Ohio River for secret distribution among the Unionists of Kentucky as the opportunity would permit.⁴³ The Secessionists had referred to these guns as the first so-called violation of neutrality. The Unionists defended themselves on the ground that since the Governor and his whole machine were about in the ranks of the Confederates they were justified in doing almost anything to defend the State. Shaler says that the action on both sides was almost simultaneous and that the actual infringement of the neutrality proclamation issued by the Governor was due to the action of Polk and Zollicoffer and the simultaneous invasion of the State some hundreds of miles apart shows that the rupture of the neutrality of Kentucky was deliberately planned by the Confederate authorities.⁴⁴

The invasion by Polk in September produced great excitement. The legislature was then in session and passed a resolution that the invaders be expelled, and that the Governor call out the military force of the State and place the same under the command of Gen. Thomas L. Crittenden. The resolutions were vetoed by the Governor but passed by a vote of two thirds.⁴⁵ The desired proclamation was issued and soon sufficient men to form forty regiments answered the call.⁴⁶ Making further response to the invasion of the State by the Confederates, the legislature ordered that the United States flag be raised over the capitol at Frankfort, and by a resolution which "affirmed" distinctly, though not directly, the doctrine of States' rights placed Kentucky in political and military association with the North.⁴⁷

William T. McKinney

Notes on Negroes in Guatemala During the Seventeenth Century

The introduction of Negroes into Guatemala commenced with the year of the conquest of that country by the Spaniards in 1524, when there came several Negro slaves with the conquistadores from Mexico. It seems that they soon increased in numbers, for among the decrees of the conquistador, Pedro de Alvarado, there is one which prohibits the selling of gunpowder to Indians and Negroes. The number of African slaves brought to Guatemala had, however, always remained relatively a very limited one, for as the Spaniards had plenty of cheap hands by means of a system of indentured labor forced upon the numerous Indian population, the importation of slaves evidently did not pay them well. It seems safe to say, that their total number never amounted to ten thousand.

The most copious, though still very sparse notices of them I have run across, are those given by Thomas Gage, an English Catholic educated in Spain, who, in the twenties and thirties of the seventeenth century, lived as a priest in the then city of Guatemala, nowadays called Antigua, and in some Indian villages not far from there.¹ One of the places where Thomas Gage observed a somewhat considerable population of Negroes was the so-called Costa del Sur, or Southern Coast, the hot land between the Andes and the Pacific, to the south of the capital. They were worked there on the indigo plantations and large cattle haciendas. The Negroes impressed Thomas Gage as the only courageous people in Guatemala while the Spanish Mestizos and Indians seemed to him to be very cowardly.

This writer said that if Guatemala was powerful with respect to its people, for she was not in arms nor resources, then she was so merely by virtue of a class of desperate Negroes, who were slaves living on the indigo plantations. Though they had no arms but a machete, which was their small lance used for chasing the wild cattle (nowadays, that name is given to a long and broad, sword-like knife), they were so desperate that they often caused fear to the very city of Guatemala and had made their masters tremble. "There are among them," said he, "those who have no fear to brave a wild bull, furious though he be, and to attach themselves to the crocodiles in the rivers, until they have killed them and brought them to the bank."²

In reading these lines, one cannot help from remembering the classical description Alexander Von Humboldt gives of the Negro boatmen of the river Dagua, in the actual republic of Colombia. The inimitable skill and unsurpassable bravery Humboldt saw them display in the midst of the ferocious currents and loud-pouring rapids of that river caused him to exclaim: "Every movement of the paddle is a wonder, and every Negro a god!" A nice monument to the fame of indomitable bravery the Negroes manifested in past times in Guatemala exists still in a saying often heard by travelers: "Esos son negros!" or "Those are Negroes," an exclamation which means: "Those are desperate men, who do not care for anything." One could also hear the saying: "Esto es obra de negros," or "that is a work of Negroes," the meaning being that it was work for bold men with iron nerves.

Another expression brings out the fact that the Negroes were considered, or forced to be, very hard workers. "Trabaja como un negro" or "he works like a Negro," signified doing "the most arduous labor." That the lot of the slaves was often a bitter one, though, because of the less greedy Spanish character, without doubt generally a less hard one than in North America, is shown by the fact that Guatemala had her "Cimarrones" just as Jamaica, and Guiana, had their Maroons.

The Spanish word "cimarron" signifies indiscriminately a runaway head of cattle or horses, that had become wild, or a runaway slave. The fugitive Negroes of Guatemala had their chief stronghold in the inaccessible mountain woods of the Sierra de las Minas, which lies near the Atlantic coast between the Golfo Dulce and the valley of the river Motagua. The Golfo Dulce, which is now abandoned because of lack of sufficient depth for the big vessels of to-day, was at that time the port of entry for the whole of Guatemala. From it a bridle-path ran over the Sierra de las Minas to the valley of the Motagua and further on to the capital. In speaking of this path over the mountain, Gage remarks: "What the Spaniards fear most until they get out of these mountains, are two or three hundred Negroes, Cimarrones, who for the bad treatment they received have fled from Guatemala and from other places, running away from their masters in order to resort to these woods; there they live with their wives and children and increase in numbers every year, so that the entire force of Guatemala City and its environments is not capable to subdue them."

They very often came out of the woods to attack those who drove teams of mules, and took from them wine, salt, clothes and arms to the quantity they needed. They never did any harm to the mule drivers nor to their slaves. On the contrary, the slaves amused themselves with the Cimarrones, because they were of the same color and in the same condition of servitude, and not seldom availed themselves of the opportunity to follow their example, and united with them to obtain liberty, though obliged to live in the woods and mountains.

Their arms were arrows and bows, which they carried only for the purpose of defending themselves against attacks of the Spaniards; for they did not harm those who passed by peacefully and who let them have a part of the provisions they carried. They often declared that their principal reason for resorting to these mountains was to be ready to join the English or Dutch, if these some day appeared in the Gulf, for they well knew that these, unlike the Spaniards, would let them live in peace.

Among the most remarkable facts learned by Thomas Gage in Guatemala is the story of a Negro freedman who had accumulated great wealth. This Negro lived in Agua Caliente, an Indian village, on the road to Guatemala City, or Antigua, where the natives had obtained considerable quantities of gold from some spot in the mountains only known to them. The Spaniards, not content with an annual tribute paid them by the Indians, endeavored in vain to force the natives to show them the mine, and because they refused killed them, thus gaining no knowledge of the mine for which they were still searching in vain in the times of Thomas Gage. "In that place of Agua Caliente," continues Gage, "there is a Negro who lives and receives very well the travelers who call upon him. His wealth consists in cattle, sheep, and goats, and he furnishes the city of Guatemala and the environments with the best cheese to be found in the country. But it is believed that his wealth does not come so much from the produce of his farm and his cattle and cheese, but from that hidden treasure which is believed known to him. He, therefore, has been summoned to the Royal Audience in Guatemala, but he has always denied to have any knowledge of it."

He had been suspected because he had formerly been a slave and had secured his liberty by means of a considerable sum. After that, he had bought his farm and much of the surrounding land and had considerably increased his original holdings. To his inquisitors he replied that, "when young and still a slave he had a kind master who suffered him to do what he pleased, and that by economy he had accumulated where-with to buy his liberty and afterwards a little house to live in; and God had given His blessing to that and let him have the means for increasing his funds."

Another one of Gage's accounts discloses the abuses common among the slave-holders under Spanish rule, and the silliness of the belief that the masters for their own benefit would treat their human property well. This account refers to one Juan Palomeque, a rich landowner and promoter of mule-transports, who lived in Gage's parish of Mexico, near the actual capital of Guatemala. He was believed to be worth six hundred thousand ducats, about 1,400,000 dollars. He owned about a hundred Negroes, men, women, and children, but was so stingy that, to avoid the expense of decent house-keeping, he never lived in the city, though he had several houses there. Instead, he lived in a straw-hut and feasted on hard, black bread and on tasajo, or thin strips of salt beef dried in the sun.

He was so cruel to his Negroes, that, when one of them behaved badly, he would whip him almost to death. He had among others a slave named Macaco, "on behalf of whom," said Gage, "I often pleaded, but in vain. At times he hung him by the hands and beat him until he had his back entirely covered with blood, and in that state, the skin being entirely torn to pieces, in order to heal up the slave's sores the master poured hot fat over them. Moreover, he had marked him with a hot iron face, hands, arms, back, belly, and legs, so that this poor slave got tired to live and intended several times to suicide himself; but I prevented him from doing so every time by remonstrances I made him."

Juan Palomeque was so sensual and voluptuous that he constantly abused the wives of his slaves as he liked, and even when he saw in the city some girl or woman of that class whom he wanted, and she was not attracted to him, he would call upon her master or mistress and buy her, "giving much more than she had cost; afterwards he boasted that he would break down her pride in one year of slavery." "In my times," said Gage, "he killed two Indians on the road to the Gulf, but by means of his money he got so easily out of that affair as if he had killed but a dog." As Gage does not tell anything of a prosecution for the crimes against the Negro, no actual law seems to have been violated.³

The descendants of the ancient slaves have so completely become mixed up with Spanish-Indian blood that, making exception of the valley of the Motagua River, they have practically disappeared as a race. In 1796, their number was considerably increased by the so-called Caribs, whom the English deported from the Island of St. Vincent and set ashore in Guatemala. They live now on the Atlantic coast, also on that of Honduras and Nicaragua, and are estimated to total about 20,000. They are Zambos, but the African blood seems to prevail.⁴

A Mulatto Corsair of the Sixteenth Century

When on his return voyage to England, sailing down the Atlantic coast of Costa Rica, Thomas Gage's ship was intercepted by two corsairs under the Dutch flag, one of them being a man-of-war. The struggle of the Netherlands for freedom against Spain had not then come to a close. The Dutch commander was a character, of whose strange experiences Gage gives an interesting account. Much to the surprise of the traveler the captain who had caught them was a mulatto named Diaguillo, who was born and brought up at Habana (Cuba), where his mother was still living. Having been maltreated by the Governor of Campeche in whose service he had been, this mulatto in a fit of utter desperation threw himself into a boat and ventured into the sea, where he met with some Dutch ships on watch for a prize. He swam to and went aboard one of these vessels, hoping to find better treatment than among his country-men. He offered himself to the Dutch and promised to serve them loyally against those of his nation who had maltreated him. Afterwards he proved himself so loyal and reliable to the Dutch, that he won much fame among them. He was married to a girl of their nation and later made captain of a vessel under that brave and noble Dutchman, whom the Spaniards dreaded much and whom they named Pie de Palo, or Wooden-leg.

"That famous mulatto," said Gage, "was he who boarded our frigate with his soldiers. I lost four thousand pesos wealth in pearls and jewelry and about three thousand in ready money. I had still other things with me, viz., a bed, some books, pictures painted on copper, and clothes, and I asked that Mulatto captain to let me keep them. He donated me them liberally, out of consideration for my vocation, and said I must take patience, for he was not allowed to dispose in other way of my pearls and my money; moreover, he used the proverb: If fortune to-day is on my side, to-morrow it will be on yours, and what I have won to-day, that I may lose to-morrow.... He also ordered to give me back some single and double pistoles, out of generosity and respect to my garb...."

"After having searched their prize," continued the traveler, "Captain and soldiers thought of refreshing themselves on the provisions we had on board; the generous captain had a luxurious dinner and invited me to be his guest, and knowing that I was going to Habana, he drank the health of his mother and asked me to go to see her and give her his kindest regards, saying that for her sake he had treated me as kindly as was in his power. He told us, moreover, when still at table, that for my sake he would give us back our ship, so that we could get back to land, and that I might find some other and safer way to continue my voyage to Spain.... Everything taken away from the ship save my belongings, which captain Diaguillo ordered to let me out of a generosity not often to be found with a corsair, he bade us fare-well thanking us for the good luck we had procured him."

Thomas Gage reached Habana in safety and called upon the mother of the Corsair, but does not say how he found her.

J. Kunst

Documents

Travelers' Impressions of Slavery in America from 1750 to 1800

From these writers, almost all of whom were foreigners, one would naturally expect such a portraiture of slavery as persons unaccustomed to the institution would give. Most Americans, of course, considered the institution as belonging to the natural order of things and, therefore, hardly ever referred to it except when they mentioned it unconsciously. Foreigners, however, as soon as they came into this new world began to compare the slaves with the lowest order of society in Europe. Finding the lot of the bondmen so much inferior to that of those of low estate in European countries, these travelers frequently made some interesting comparisons. We are indebted to them for valuable information which we can never hope to obtain from the literature of an essentially slaveholding people. Here we see how the American Revolution caused a change for the better in the condition of the Negroes in certain States, and how the rigorousness of slavery continued in the others. We learn too what enlightened Negroes thought about their state and what the white man believed should be done to prevent their reaching the point of self-assertion. That a large number of anti-slavery Americans were advocating and effecting the emancipation of slaves appears throughout these documents.

Some Letters of Richard Allen and Absalom Jones to Dorothy Ripley

Philadelphia, 1st, 5th month, 1803.--Naming my concern to some of my solid friends to have a meeting with the Africans, I influenced them to send for Absalom Jones, the Black Bishop, and Richard Allen, the Methodist Episcopal Preacher, who also was a coloured man, and the principal person of that congregation. A. Jones complied with my request, and appointed a meeting for me on first day evening, which was a solid time where many were deeply affected with the softening power of the Lord, who unloosed my tongue to proclaim of his love and goodness to the children of men, without respect to person or nation. There was a respectable number of coloured people, well dressed and very orderly, who conducted themselves as if they were desirous of knowing the mind of the Lord concerning them. The first and greatest commandment of Jesus Christ, the Law-giver, came before me: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind," which I endeavoured to enforce as their duty to their Creator who alone could make them happy by his blessing through their obedience to his lawful command. My own experience of thus loving him, I thought would illustrate it, therefore, added it to shew the possibility of pleasing him, and obtaining his divine favor, which was our interest and duty, as soon as we were able to distinguish right from wrong. To see them have this good house for worship, I told them rejoiced me much, and encouraged such as were servants present to be faithful in their situation, and seek the blessing of God, that at the last they might be happy in the enjoyment of his love forever. Supplicating the Throne of mercy in their behalf, my spirit was deeply humbled, and I felt power to plead with the Father on the account of the Africans every where, who were captivated by the oppressive power of men. When we had separated, my mind was much relieved from the weight which pressed my spirit while I had contemplated the matter, desiring to move by special direction of God.

A Letter which I received from Bethel Church.

"Madam,

"I have proposed to the Board of Trustees of Bethel Church your request respecting your speaking in our Church; they have candidly considered the same, and after due investigation, the board unanimously concludes, that as it is diametrically opposite to the letter and spirit of the rules of society in particular, and the discipline in general of the Methodist Episcopalian Church, They therefore are sorry to inform you, that it is not in their power to comply with your request.

"I am, madam,
"With much respect,
"Yours, &c.
"Richd. Allen."

"May 11, 1803."

After R. Allen had sent me this letter by way of denial, the Lord commanded me to "Stand still for I should most assuredly have his place to testify his goodness there." Putting the letter into my pocket, I silently waited for the answer of promise; and while I was thus watching the fulfilment of God's word, there came into my friend's house J. & P. P. two men who enquired if I could not be satisfied without an appointment with R. Allen's people, I said No: for that I believed it was required of me by God. They enquired if I had not received a letter as a denial, which I marvelled at, having shewn it to no person living. I answered their question by handing the letter to them which when they had read it they returned, and signified they would go themselves to see after an opportunity, and obtained permission after the minister had finished his sermon, he being desired to be concise to accomodate a stranger who was then concerned for them. I went to the meeting, or their church, and heard a short methodist sermon, which I thought very instructive, and added thereunto, respecting the conversion of "A man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship." This pleased them so much when it was opened, that they were willing that I should have another meeting on the second day evening at seven, which I attended, and was brought into great difficulty through an intoxicated soldier pressing by the crowd which stood without. A number of friends being there, were unsettled, fearing lest the house would come down upon us, and for my part, I was actually afraid of satan's malice, lest we should perish in this storm which he raised in a moment. The disquietude of the people made me tremble and shake every limb, not knowing what course to betake myself to for the preservation of us each. I therefore gave up speaking: but this only encouraged the accuser of the brethren, who had come there in the hearts of many, as well as in the poor drunkard, who was taken away and confined. Pouring out my soul to God, I vowed to serve him yet more faithfully, if he would quell the rage of the adversary, and cause us to depart in peace; and I was instantly directed to prostrate myself before him, in faith believing that no harm should befall any of us at that time, which doing commanded the care of Almighty God over us, and the blessing of the Most High to rest upon us, continuing wrestling for some time, knowing this was a powerful weapon against satan, for thus interrupting us in our solemn engagement with God. When I had prayed by the aid of his Holy Spirit, which calmed the minds of the people, I thought I would leave the subject until I came back again,¹ and so come suddenly upon the monster, if it was the will of God: but he pretended that he would do terrible things if I came thither again, so I suppose King Apollyon and I shall have a strong battle to combat, before I enter the house of God: for I mean to war with him on his own ground, and gain the victory before I enter there again. Concluding the meeting sooner than was expected, R. Allen stopped the congregation and told them, "It was no new thing which had happened to us then: for in the days of old, when the sons and daughters of God met together, satan presented himself also, to interrupt their peace." I was much pleased to hear what was advanced, as it shewed the preacher (although a coloured man) to have a knowledge of divine things, and able to attack the enemy of our souls in a suitable degree.

Feeling desirous to follow the Shepherd of my soul, and seeing no further work at this time for me, I leave this city in peace, requesting the Lord to bless the seed sown in great weakness, and to water it with the descending showers of his spiritual rain, that the glory may arise to him alone who is worthy to be praised by every creature, but especially by a worm whom he has preserved thus far from the destructive power of sin, and satan. I trust the Lord will repay each here who have contributed to comfort my soul in the day of distress and heavy travail, and I beseech him of his infinite mercy to forgive such as have blindly persecuted me, by saying unjust things of me, which they have reported merely to gratify the curiosity of others, without considering the waste of their precious moments, or that they will be accountable at the last for "Every idle word" that they may speak while on earth, if not repented of, by a gracious visitation of God's humbling power, which they will find painful, when his judgment, takes place in them to weigh all their words, thoughts, and actions.--Philadelphia, 5th month, 1803.

I have been five weeks and four days in New York, and the neighbouring plains, and have met with sympathizing friends to relieve my mind when full of anxious care concerning the vineyard of the Lord.--Several have told me that I was one of those strangers who should feed the flock of Israel by the appointment of God, which revives me when I consider how significant a creature I am in my own eyes.

The yearly meeting was large, and attended by some precious ministers, whose testimonies will cause them to be written on my heart as living epistles. How do I feel myself united with spiritual worshippers, who desire to ascribe all glory to the Father, through the Son's reigning power in them, by the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost which leads them into the depth of self-abasement, and gathers all their powers to centre them in the God of all grace and glory. I rejoice that ever I met with this people, whom I often lament for, because so many live not in the pure principle of Truth, which if they as a body did, the whole earth would soon be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. O that my advantages which I have had up and down among this people, may lead me to honor their God, whom the pure in heart are concerned to worship continually! I have had three large meetings with the Africans in this city, and have great reason to be thankful that the Lord aided me with his Spirit, helping my infirmities in the hour of necessity, when I stood in need of his assistance, standing up to exalt the great Redeemer who died for all nations, that the Lord would bless my little labour of love among this people whom I have secretly mourned for!

I cannot avoid commending the citizens of New York and Philadelphia, for their help to those that have been greatly oppressed, driving slavery out of their States, that they may have the peace of God, and his blessing upon the heads of their children, and children's children. I trust also to see the efforts of individuals crowned with a blessing in the Southern States, where barrenness of the land bespeaks the proverty and wretchedness of thousands of its inhabitants who might enjoy the smile of Heaven, if they would learn to fear God and love their neighbor.

When comparing those States one with the other, what a vast difference there is between them in the outward appearance of things: but I trust the minds of the people to the southward, are not like the barren appearance of many parts I have already travelled, or may yet have to do: for I perceive the Lord intends me to return back to discharge my duty to him, and the people up and down.

I have received the following letters from Philadelphia and think them worthy to make up a page or two in my life. Letter from Absalom Jones, Black Bishop of the Episcopal Church, in Philadelphia, addressed to Dorothy Ripley, at New York, dated Philadelphia, June 3, 1803.

Dear Friend,

It is with pleasure that I now sit down to inform you, that your kind and very affectionate letter came safe to hand; and am happy to hear that kind Providence has conducted you so far on your journey in health of body as well as of mind; and I trust that the Lord will continue to be your Guide, and that your labours may prove as great a blessing to the inhabitants of New-York, as they have been to numbers in this city.

Your letter I read with care and attention, as well as many others of my congregation, and I heartily thank you for your friendly advice and godly admonitions; believing them to have been given in that love which purifies the heart. I am very sensible that the charge committed to my care is very great; and am also fully convinced of my own inability for so great an undertaking. And I do assure you, that when I was called to the task, I trembled at the idea, and was ready to say, "Who am I." But when I consider that God can send by whom he will, and as you very justly have observed, he sometimes makes use of the feeblest instruments for the promotion of Truth; I say under these considerations, I was led to believe that the Lord would perfect strength in my weakness; and glory be to his ever-adorable Name for it. I have cause to believe, my labour has not been altogether in vain.

You wish to know the number I consider to be under my care. Our list of members contains about five hundred, although we have a great many more who constantly attend worship in our church, of whom I have a comfortable hope that they will be brought unto the knowledge of the Truth.

My wife joins me in love. I remain, with sentiments of high esteem and respect,

Your esteemed Friend,

Absalom Jones

Letter from an African Minister, resident in Philadelphia Addressed to Dorothy Ripley

Philadelphia, 24th, of 6th mo. 1803.

Friend Ripley,

I Received thy epistle, dated New-York, 26th of 5th month, with much joy, thanks and satisfaction; and am thankful for thy kind spiritual advice, and grateful for thy concern for me and my people.

With the assistance of the good Spirit, I will attend to thy serious admonitions in the Lord, and listen to the small still voice of Christ within, as thou dost observe in thy epistle, for it is He that must enable me to observe his holy law written on the heart by his Spirit.

I wish to take thy sisterly counsel; but O! my abounding weakness. I wish to be more sensible of it, so that I alone may feel it. I would hide it from my friends, but they are too eagle-eyed not to discover it; yet they have the charity to bear with me.--I often bow at the foot-stool of divine mercy, that I may obtain strength to overcome corrupt nature.--None knows but myself my strivings to walk in the narrow way, in which the poor worm has no desire to rob God of his honor. I see the beauty of nakedness to be far superior than to be clothed with rags of self-righteousness.

Thou enquirest how many communicants there are in our church. The precise number of my communicants is 457. All our members are communicants. There is a communion of saints which exceeds all formality, and which even the Apostles were ignorant of, when they gave an account to their Master, on their return from their mission, and told him, "We saw men casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade them, because they followed not us." Yet I still continue of the same mind, that it would be best for thee to be a member of some religious society.--The teachings of Priscilla and Aquila have been found profitable to the eloquent and wise.

The members of the African Methodist Episcopal church (called Bethel) live in love and harmony with each other.

My fellow laborer, Absalom Jones, joins me in a salutation of love to thee, with desires for thy growth and increase in the favor of God: He says he would have written to thee, had he known of thy continuance at New York.

Praying God to bless and make thee instrumental in promoting his glory and the good of souls, I remain, thine, &c.

Richard Allen

Letter from an African, resident in Philadelphia, to Dorothy Ripley

May 17, 1803.

Respected Friend,

I am perhaps presumptuous in troubling you to read this. But cannot let slip an opportunity of addressing you with what I wish you to know even when you have arrived at your native country, and may contemplate on a subject which I hope will not displease you, and I will thank Heaven I have it in my power to let one amongst the people called Quakers² see, written by the hand of an African, the sentiments of his soul. I mean only to trouble you with the obligations that race of people, myself amongst that great multitude, are to you indebted; and may the unremitting pains which have been taken not fall to the ground. We have been oppressed with cruelty and the heavy task-masters in the West Indies and the southern States of America for many centuries back, with not only the horrible weight of bondage, but have been subject to heavy iron chains, too heavy to bear, had not the Creator of all things framed our constitutions to bear them, and all the deep cuts and lashes the inhuman-hearted drivers please to mangle us with. Had not the all-directing hand of Providence made us come under the notice of the Friends, who formed an abolition society for our relief, many thousands of us would be dragging out our lives in wretchedness, like those of our brethren who have never yet tasted the sweet cup of liberty. Yet while the nations of Europe are contending to catch the draught, the African is forbidden to lift up his head towards it. Every man has a right to his liberty, and we must by the ties of nature come under the title of men: but are dragged from our native land, in our old age or in our infancy, and sold as the brute, to the planters; the infant dragged from its parents, and the husband from wife and children, and hurried into the cane field, to give independence to their owners, and annex abundance to their riches. And how is this, that God created us amongst the rest of human beings, and yet man would level us with the brute? We were not all born Christians, but many have become so; and I pray Heaven many thousands of us may be received at the bar of God amongst the righteous at his right hand, and with you glorify him in Heaven for ever. I pray that the Africans may enjoy his holy privileges, and let their light shine before men.

The cross³ you met with in your sermon at Bethel African church grieved me much, but it originated with white men. Had it been one of my complexion, it would prey on my feelings to the very heart. But I hope you will forget it. If I was a converted soul in the Lord, I could address you on a more spiritual subject. But alas! I am an unfortunate being not born a second time. Yet weak as I am, the prayers of an unconverted African shall be offered to Heaven for your happiness on earth, and in the world to come life everlasting. And may the vessel in which you may embark for England be attended with a fair and pleasant passage, and land you safe on its shores. And when you shall lay your head on a dying pillow, to leave this troublesome world, may you be surrounded with a blessed convoy of angels to attend you to the Throne of God.

I am, Yours, Of The African Race

--"The Extraordinary Conversion and Religious Experience of Dorothy Ripley with her First Voyage in America," 132-144.