The Journal of Negro History_ Volume 6_ 1921 Various 2224 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Journal of Negro
History, Volume 6, 1921
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921

Author: Various

Release date: July 26, 2007 [eBook #22149]
Most recently updated: January 2, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats:
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22149

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

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY, VOLUME 6, 1921 ***

Transcriber's Note:

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

The Journal
of
Negro History

Volume VI

1921

Contents
Vol VI—January, 1921—No. 1

Fifty Years of Negro Citizenship C. G. Woodson
Remy Ollier, Mauritian Journalist and Patriot Charles H. Wesley
A Negro Colonization Project in Mexico J. Fred Rippy
Documents
James Madison's Attitude toward the Negro
Some Undistinguished Negroes
Book Reviews
Notes
Proceedings of Annual Meeting

Vol VI—April, 1921—No. 2

Alrutheus A.
Making West Virginia a Free State
Taylor
Canadian Negroes and the John Brown Raid Fred Landon
Negro and Spanish Pioneer in New World J. Fred Rippy
Economic Condition of Negroes of New York Arnett G. Lindsay
Documents
The Appeal of the American Convention of Abolition
Societies
Correspondence
Book Reviews
Notes

Vol VI—July, 1921—No. 3

The Material Culture of Ancient Nigeria William Leo Hansberry
The Negro in British South Africa D. A. Lane, Jr.
Baptism of Slaves in Prince Edward Island William Renwick Riddell
Documents
Book Reviews

Notes

Vol VI—October, 1921—No. 4

The Negro Migration of 1916-1918 Henderson H. Donald
Book Reviews
Notes

The Journal
of
Negro History

Vol. VI—January, 1921—No. 1

FIFTY YEARS OF NEGRO CITIZENSHIP AS
QUALIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT
The Historic Background

The citizenship of the Negro in this country is a fiction. The
Constitution of the United States guarantees to him every right
vouchsafed to any individual by the most liberal democracy on the
face of the earth, but despite the unusual powers of the Federal
Government this agent of the body politic has studiously evaded the
duty of safeguarding the rights of the Negro. The Constitution
confers upon Congress the power to declare war and make peace,
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to coin money,
to regulate commerce, and the like; and further empowers Congress
"to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by
this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof." After the unsuccessful effort of
Virginia and Kentucky, through their famous resolutions of 1798
drawn up by Jefferson and Madison to interpose State authority in
preventing Congress from exercising its powers, the United States
Government with Chief Justice John Marshall as the expounder of
that document, soon brought the country around to the position of
thinking that, although the Federal Government is one of
enumerated powers, that government and not that of States is the
judge of the extent of its powers and, "though limited in its powers, is
supreme within its sphere of action."[1] Marshall showed, too, that
"there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of
Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which
requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely
described."[2] Marshall insisted, moreover, "that the powers given to
the government imply the ordinary means of execution," and "to

imply the means necessary to an end is generally understood as
implying any means, calculated to produce the end and not as being
confined to those single means without which the end would be
entirely unattainable."[3] He said: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be
within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not
prohibited, but consist with the letter and the spirit of the
Constitution, are constitutional."

Fortified thus, the Constitution became the rock upon which
nationalism was built and by 1833 there were few persons who
questioned the supremacy of the Federal Government, as did South
Carolina with its threats of nullification. Because of the beginning of
the intense slavery agitation not long thereafter, however, and the
division of the Democratic party into a national and a proslavery
group, the latter advocating State's rights to secure the perpetuation
of slavery, there followed a reaction after the death of John Marshall
in 1835, when the court abandoned to some extent the advanced
position of nationalism of this great jurist and drifted toward the
localism long since advocated by Judge Roane of Virginia.

In making the national government the patron of slavery, a new sort
of nationalism as a defence of that institution developed thereafter,
however, and culminated in the Dred Scott decision.[4] To justify the
high-handed methods to protect the master's property right in the
bondman, these jurists not only referred to the doctrines of Marshall
already set forth above but relied also upon the decisions of Justice
Storey, the nationalist surviving Chief Justice Marshall. They
believed with Storey that a constitution of government founded by
the people for themselves and their posterity and for objects of the
most momentous nature—for perpetual union, for the establishment
of justice, for the general welfare and for a perpetuation of the
blessings of liberty—necessarily requires that every interpretation of
its powers have a constant reference to those objects. No
interpretation of the words in which those powers are granted can be
a sound one which narrows down every ordinary import so as to
defeat those objects.

In the decision of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, when the effort was to carry
out the fugitive slave law,[5] the court, speaking through Justice
Storey in 1842, believed that the clause of the Constitution
conferring a right should not be so construed as to make it shadowy
or unsubstantial or leave the citizen without the power adequate for
its protection when another construction equally accordant with the
words and the sense in which they were used would enforce and
protect the right granted. The court believed that Congress is not
restricted to legislation for the execution of its expressly granted
powers; but for the protection of rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, may employ such means not prohibited, as are
necessary and proper, or such as are appropriate to attain the ends
proposed. The court held, moreover, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, that
"the fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would
seem to be, that when the end is required the means are given; and
when the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to
exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted." It
required very little argument to expose the fallacy in supposing that
the national government had ever meant to rely for the due fulfillment
of its duties and the rights which it established, upon State legislation
rather than upon that of the United States, and with greater reason,
when one bears in mind that the execution of power which was to be
the same throughout the nation could not be confided to any State
which could not rightfully act beyond its own territorial limits. All of
this power exercised in executing the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793
was implied, rather than such direct power as that later conferred
upon Congress by the Thirteenth Amendment, which provided that
Congress should have power to pass appropriate legislation to
enforce it.

As the Supreme Court decided in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania
that the officers of the State were not legally obligated to assist in the
enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, Congress passed
another and a more drastic measure in 1850 which, although
unusually rigid in its terms, was enthusiastically supported by the
Supreme Court in upholding the slavery regime. The Fugitive Slave
Law of 1850 deprived the Negro suspect of the right of a trial by jury

to determine the question of his freedom in a competent court of the
State. The affidavit of the person claiming the Negro was sufficient
evidence of ownership. This law made it the duty of marshals and of
the United States courts to obey and execute all warrants and
precepts issued under the provisions of this act. It imposed a penalty
of a fine and imprisonment upon any person knowingly hindering the
arrest of a fugitive or attempting to rescue one from custody or
harboring one or aiding one to escape. The writ of habeas corpus
was denied to the reclaimed Negro and the act was ex post facto. In
short, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 committed the whole country
to the task of the protection of slave property and made slavery a
national matter with which every citizen in the country had to be
concerned. In the interest of the property right of the master,
moreover, the Supreme Court by the Dred Scott Decision[6] upheld
this measure, feeling that there was in Congress adequate power
expressly given and implied to enforce this regulation in spite of any
local opposition that there might develop against the government
acting upon individuals to carry out this police regulation. The Negro
was not a citizen and in his non-political status could not sue in a
Federal court, which for the same reason must disclaim jurisdiction
in a case in which the Negro was a party.

In the decision of Ableman v. Booth[6a] the court in construing the
provision for the return of slaves according to the Fugitive Slave Law
of 1850 further recognized the master's right of property in his
bondman, the right of assisting and recovering him regardless of any
State law or regulation or local custom to the contrary whatsoever.
This tribunal then believed that the right of the master to have his
fugitive slave delivered up on the claim, being guaranteed by the
Constitution, the implication was that the national government was
clothed with proper authority and functions to enforce it. These were
reversed during the Civil War by the nation rising in arms against the
institution of slavery which it had economically outgrown and the
court in the support of the Federal Government exercising its
unusual powers in effecting the political and social upheaval
resulting in the emancipation of the slaves, again became decidedly
national in its decisions.

Out of Rebellion the Negro emerged a free man endowed by the
State and Federal Government with all the privileges and immunities
of a citizen in accordance with the will of the majority of the American
people, as expressed in the Civil Rights Bill and in the ratification of
the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A decidedly
militant minority, however, willing to grant the Negro freedom of body
but unwilling to grant him political or civil rights, bore it grievously
that the race had been so suddenly elevated and soon thereafter
organized a party of reaction to reduce the freedmen to the position
of the free people of color, who before the Civil War had no rights but
that of exemption from involuntary servitude. During the
Reconstruction period when the Negroes figured conspicuously in
the rebuilding of the Southern States they temporarily enjoyed the
rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. As there set in a reaction
against the support of the reconstructed governments as
administered by corrupt southerners and interlopers, the support
which the United States Government had given this first effort in
America toward actual democracy was withdrawn and the undoing of
the Negro as a citizen was easily effected throughout the South by
general intimidation and organized mobs known as the Ku-Klux Klan.

One of the first rights denied the Negro by these successful
reactionaries was the unrestricted use of common carriers. Standing
upon its former record, however, the court had sufficient precedents
to continue as the impartial interpreter of the laws guaranteeing all
persons civil and political equality. In New Jersey Steam Navigation
Company v. Merchants Bank[7] the court speaking through Justice
Nelson took high ground in the defence of the free and unrestricted
use of common carriers, a right frequently denied the Negroes after
the Civil War. The court said that a common carrier is "in the exercise
of a sort of public office and has public duties to perform from which
he should not be permitted to exonerate himself without assent of
the parties concerned." This doctrine was upheld in Munn v. Illinois[8]
and in Olcott v. Supervisors[9] when it was decided that railroads are
public highways established under the authority of the State for the
public use; and that they are none the less public highways, because
controlled and owned by private corporations; that it is a part of the

function of government to make and maintain highways for the
convenience of the public; that no matter who is agent or what is the
agency, the function performed is that of the State; that although the
owners may be private companies, they may be compelled to permit
the public to use these works in the manner in which they can be
used; "Upon these grounds alone," continues the opinion, "have
courts sustained the investiture of railroad corporations with the
States right of eminent domain, or the right of municipal
corporations, under legislative authority, to assess, levy, and collect
taxes to aid in the construction of railroads."[10] Jurists in this country
and in England had also held that inasmuch as the innkeeper is
engaged in a quasi public employment, the law gives him special
privileges and he is charged with certain duties and responsibilities
to the public. The public nature of his employment would then forbid
him from discriminating against any person asking admission, on
account of the race or color of that person.[11]

In the Slaughter House Cases[12] and Strauder v. West Virginia[13]
the United States Supreme Court held that since slavery was the
moving or principal cause of the adoption of the Thirteenth
Amendment, and since that institution rested wholly upon the
inferiority, as a race, of those held in bondage, their freedom
necessarily involved immunity from, and protection against all
discrimination against them, because of their race in respect of such
civil rights as belong to freemen of other races. Congress, therefore,
under its present express power to enforce that amendment by
appropriate legislation, might enact laws to protect that people
against deprivation, because of their race, of any civil rights granted
to other freemen in the same States; and such legislation may be of
a direct and primary character, operating upon States, their officers
and agents, and also upon, at least, such individuals and
corporations as exercise public functions and wield power and
authority under the State.

The State was conceded the power to regulate rates, fares of
passengers and freight, and upon these grounds it might regulate
the entire management of railroads in matters affecting the

convenience and safety of the public, such as regulating speed,
compelling stops of prescribed length at stations and prohibiting
discriminations and favoritisms. The position taken here is that these
corporations are actual agents of the State and what the State
permits them to do is an act of the State. The Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments made the Negro race a part of the public
and entitled to share in the control and use of public utilities. Any
restriction in the use of these utilities would deprive the race of its
liberty; for "personal liberty consists," says Blackstone, "in the power
of locomotion of changing situation, of removing one's person to
whatever places one's own inclination may direct, without restraint,
unless by due course of law."

In several decisions the court had held that the purpose of the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments was to raise the Negro race
from that condition of inferiority and servitude in which most of them
had previously stood, into perfect equality of civil rights with all other
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. In Strauder v.
West Virginia,[14] and Neal v. Delaware,[15] the court had taken the
position that exemption from race discrimination is a right of a citizen
of the United States. Negroes charged that members of their race
had been excluded from a jury because of their color. The court was
then of the opinion that such action contravened the Constitution
and, as was held in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, declared it
essential to the national supremacy that the agent of the body politic
should have the power to enforce and protect any right granted by
the Constitution.

In Ex Parte Virginia the position was the same. In this case one
Cole, a county judge, was charged by the laws of Virginia with the
duty of selecting grand and petit jurors. The laws of that State did not
permit him in the performance of that duty to make any distinction as
to race. He was indicted in a Federal court under the act of 1875, for
making such discriminations. The attorney-general of Virginia
contended that the State had done its duty, and had not authorized
or directed that county judge to do what he was charged with having
done; that the State had not denied to the Negro race the equal

protection of the laws; and that consequently the act of Cole must be
deemed his individual act, in contravention of the will of the State.
Plausible as this argument was, it failed to convince the court; and
after emphasizing the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment had
reference to the acts of the political body denominated a State, "by
whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be
taken" and that a State acts by its legislative, executive and judicial
authorities, and can act in no other way, it said:

"The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of
the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are
exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a
State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty
without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal
protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibitions; and, as
he acts under the name and for the State, and is clothed with the
State power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the
constitutional prohibition has no meaning. Then the State has
clothed one of its agents with power to annul or evade it. But the
constitutional amendment was ordained for a purpose. It was to
secure equal rights to all persons, and, to insure to all persons the
enjoyment of such rights, power was given to Congress to enforce its
provisions by appropriate legislation. Such legislation must act upon
persons, not upon the abstract thing denominated as State but upon
the persons who are the agents of the State, in the denial of the
rights which were intended to be secured."[16]

The Supreme Court of the United States soon fell under reactionary
influence and gave its judicial sanction to all repression necessary to
establish permanently the reactionaries in the South and to deprive
the Negroes of their political and civil rights. It will be interesting,
therefore, to show exactly how far the United States Supreme Court,
supposed to be an impartial tribunal and generally held in such high
esteem and treated with such reverential fear, has been guilty of
inconsistency and sophistry in its effort to support this autocracy in
defiance of the well established principles of interpretation for

construing the constitutions and laws of States and in utter disregard
of the supremacy of Congress in the exercise of the powers granted
the government by the Constitution of the United States.

The Right of Locomotion

In 1875 Congress passed a measure commonly known as the Civil
Rights Bill, which was supplementary of other measures of the same
sort, the first being enacted April 9, 1866.[17] and reenacted with
some modifications in sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Enforcement
Act passed August 31, 1870.[18] The intention of the statesmen
advocating these measures was to secure to the freedmen the
enjoyment of every right guaranteed all other citizens. The important
sections of the Civil Rights Bill of 1875 follow:
Section 1. That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled
to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and
privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres, and other places of
public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law,
and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous
condition of servitude.

Section 2. That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any
citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and
regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the
accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges in said section enumerated, or by
aiding or inciting such denial, shall for every such offense forfeit and pay the sum of five
hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action of debt,
with full costs; and shall also, for every such offense be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and, upon conviction therefor, shall be fined not less than five hundred
nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor
more than one year. Provided, That all persons may elect to sue for the penalties
aforesaid, or to proceed under their rights at common law and by State statutes; and
having so elected to proceed in the one mode or the other, their right to proceed in the
other jurisdiction shall be barred: But this provision shall not apply to criminal
proceedings, either under this act or the criminal law of any State: and provided further,
That a judgment for the penalty in favor of the party aggrieved, or a judgment upon an
indictment, shall be a bar to either prosecution respectively.

Although the Negroes by this measure were guaranteed the rights
which were granted by the Constitution to every citizen of the United
States, the members of the Supreme Court of the United States
instead of upholding the laws of the nation in accordance with their
oaths undertook to hedge around and to explain away the articles of

the Constitution in such a way as to legislate rather than interpret the
laws according to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Subjected to all sorts of discriminations at the polls, in the courts, in
inns, in hotels, on street cars, and on railroads, Negroes had sued
for redress of their grievances and the persons thus called upon to
respond in the courts attacked the constitutionality of the Civil Rights
Bill, and the War Amendments, contending that they encroached
upon the police power of the States.

The first of these Civil Rights Cases were: United States v. Stanley,
United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v.
Singleton, and Robinson and wife v. Memphis and Charleston R. R.
Co. Two of these cases, those against Stanley and Nichols, were
indictments for denying to persons of color the accommodations of
an inn or hotel; two of them, those against Ryan and Singleton,
were, one on information, the other on indictments, for denying to
individuals the privileges and accommodations of a theatre. The
information against Ryan was for refusing a colored person a seat in
the dress circle of McGuire's Theatre in San Francisco; and the
indictment against Singleton was for denying to another person,
whose color was not stated, the full enjoyment of the
accommodation of the theatre known as the Grand Opera House in
New York.

The argument to show the culpability of the State was that in
becoming a business man or a corporation established by sanction
of and protected by the State, such a person or persons
discriminating against a citizen of color no longer acted in a private
but in a public capacity and in so doing affected an interest in
violation of the State by controlling, as in the case of slavery, an
individual's power of locomotion. The Civil Rights Bill was
appropriate legislation as defined by the Constitution to forbid any
action by private persons which "in the light of our history may
reasonably be apprehended to tend, on account of its being
incidental to quasi public occupations, to create an institution." The
act of 1875 in prohibiting persons from violating the rights of other
persons to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations of

inns and public conveyances, for any reason turning merely upon the
race or color of the latter, partook of the specific character of certain
contemporaneous, solemn and effective action by the United States
to which it was a sequel and is constitutional.

Giving the opinion of the court in Civil Rights Cases,[19] Mr. Justice
Bradley said that the Fourteenth Amendment on which this act of
1875 rested for its authority, if it had any authority at all, does not
invest Congress to legislate within the domain of State legislation or
in State action of the kind referred to in the Civil Rights Act. He
believed that the Fourteenth Amendment does not authorize
Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of
private rights. He conceded that positive rights and privileges are
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment but only by prohibition
against State laws and State proceedings affecting those rights.[20]
"Until some State law has passed," he said, "or some State action
through its officers or agents has been taken, adverse to the rights of
citizens sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, no
legislation of the United States under said amendment, nor any
proceeding under such legislation, can be called into activity; for the
prohibitions of the amendment are against State laws and acts under
State authority." Otherwise Congress would take the place of State
legislatures and supersede them and regulate all private rights
between man and man. Civil rights such as are guaranteed by the
Constitution against State aggression, thought Justice Bradley,
cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals unsupported
by State authority in the shape of laws, customs, or executive
proceedings, for those are private wrongs.

Justice Bradley believed, moreover, that the Civil Rights Act could
not be supported by the Thirteenth Amendment in that, unlike the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Thirteenth Amendment is primary and
direct in abolishing slavery. "When a man has emerged from
slavery," said he, "and by the aid of beneficent legislation has
shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state there must be
some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank
of a mere citizen, ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and

when his rights as a citizen or a man, are to be protected in the
ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected." To eject
a Negro from an inn or a hotel, to compel him to ride in a separate
car, to deny him access and use of places maintained at public
expense, according to Justice Bradley, do not constitute imposing
upon the Negroes badges and incidents of slavery; for they are acts
of individuals with which Congress, because of the limited powers of
the Federal government, cannot have anything to do. The particular
clause in the Civil Rights Act, so far as it operated on individuals in
the several States was, therefore, held null and void, but the court
held that it might apply to the District of Columbia and territories of
the United States for which Congress might legislate directly. Since
then the court has in the recent Wright Case declared null and void
even that part which it formerly said might apply to territory governed
directly by Congress, thus taking the position tantamount to reading
into the laws of the United States and the laws of nations the
segregation measures of a mediaeval ex-slaveholding
commonwealth assisted by the nation in enforcing obedience to its
will beyond the three mile limit on the high seas.

Although conceding that the Thirteenth Amendment was direct and
primary legislation, the court held that it had nothing to do with the
guarantee against that race discrimination commonly referred to in
the bills of complaint as the badges and incidents of slavery. The
court found the Fourteenth Amendment negative rather than direct
and primary because of one of its clauses providing that "no State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty and property without due process
of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." The court was too evasive or too stupid to
observe that the first clause of this amendment was an affirmation to
the effect that all persons born and naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. In other words, the court
held that if there is one negative clause in a paragraph, the whole
paragraph is a negation. Such sophistry deserves the condemnation

of all fairminded people, when one must conclude that any person
even without formal education, if he has heard the English language
spoken and is of sound mind, would know better than to interpret a
law so unreasonably.

In declaring this act unconstitutional the Supreme Court of the United
States violated one of its own important principles of interpretation to
the effect that this duty is such a delicate one, that the court in
declaring a statute of Congress invalid must do so with caution,
reluctance and hesitation and never until the duty becomes
manifestly imperative. In the decision of Fletcher v. Peck,[21] the
court said that whether the legislative department of the government
has transcended the limits of its constitutional power is at all times a
question of much delicacy, which seldom, if ever, is to be decided in
the affirmative, in a doubtful case. The position between the
Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear
and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other. In the
Sinking Fund Cases[22] the court said: "When required in the regular
course of judicial proceedings to declare an act of Congress void if
not within the legislative power of the United States, this declaration
should never be made except in a clear case. Every possible
presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues
until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt. One branch of
the government cannot encroach on the domain of another without
danger. The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on
a strict observance of this salutary rule." And this is exactly what
happened. The judiciary here assumed the function of the legislative
department. Not even a casual reader on examining these laws and
the Constitution can feel that the court in this case felt such a clear
and strong conviction as to the invalidity of this constitutional
legislation when that tribunal, as its records show, had under
different circumstances before the Civil War held a doctrine
decidedly to the contrary.

Mr. Justice Harlan, therefore, dissented. He considered the opinion
of the court narrow, as the substance and spirit were sacrificed by a
subtle and ingenious verbal criticism. Justice Harlan believed, "that it

is not the words of the law but the internal sense of it that makes the
law; the letter of the law is the body, the sense and reason of the law
the soul." "Constitutional provisions adopted in the interest of liberty,"
said Justice Harlan, "and for the purpose of securing, through
national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom,
and belonging to American citizenship, have been so construed as to
defeat the end the people desire to accomplish, which they
attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had
accomplished, by changes in their fundamental law."

The court, according to Justice Harlan, although he did not mean to
say that the determination in this case should have been materially
controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy, had
departed from the familiar rule requiring that the purpose of the law
or Constitution and the objects to be accomplished by any grant are
often the most important in reaching real intent just as the debates in
the convention of 1787 and the discussions in the Federalist and in
the ratifying conventions of the States have often been referred to as
throwing important light on clauses in the Constitution seeming to
show ambiguity. The debates on the war amendment, when they
were proposed and ratified, were thoroughly expounded before the
court in bringing before that tribunal the intention of the members of
Congress, by which the court, according to a well established
principle of interpretation, should have been influenced in construing
the statute in question.

The court held that legislation for the enforcement of the Thirteenth
Amendment is direct and primary "but to what specific ends may it
be directed?" inquired Justice Harlan. The court "had uniformly held
that national government has the power, whether expressly given or
not, to secure and protect rights conferred or guaranteed by the
Constitution."[23] Justice Harlan believed then that the doctrines
should not be abandoned when the inquiry was not as to an implied
power to protect the master's rights, but what Congress might, under
powers expressly granted, do for the protection of freedom and the
rights necessarily inhering in a state of freedom.

The Thirteenth Amendment, the court conceded, did more than
prohibit slavery as an institution, resting upon distinctions of race,
and upheld by positive law. The court admitted that it "established
and decreed universal civil freedom throughout the United States."
"But did the freedom thus established," inquired Justice Harlan,
"involve more than exemption from actual slavery? Was nothing
more intended than to forbid one man from owning another as
property? Was it the purpose of the nation simply to destroy the
institution and then remit the race, theretofore held in bondage, to
the several States for such protection, in their civil rights, necessarily
growing out of their freedom, as those States in their discretion might
choose to provide? Were the States against whose protest the
institution was destroyed to be left free, so far as national
interference was concerned, to make or allow discriminations against
that race, as such, in the enjoyment of those fundamental rights
which by universal concession, inhere in a state of freedom?" Justice
Harlan considered it indisputable that Congress in having power to
abolish slavery could destroy the burdens and disabilities remaining
as its badges and incidents which constitute its substance in visible
form.

The court in its defense had taken as an illustration that the negative
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not direct and primary,
that although the States are prohibited from passing laws to impair
the obligations of contracts this did not mean that Congress could
legislate for the general enforcement of contracts throughout the
States. Discomfitting his brethren on their own ground Harlan said:
"A prohibition upon a State is not a power in Congress or in the
national government. It is simply a denial of power to the State. The
much talked of illustration of impairing the obligation of contracts,
therefore, is not an example of power expressly conferred in
contradistinction to that of this case and is not convincing for this
would be a court matter, not a matter of Congress. The Fourteenth
Amendment is the first case of conferring upon Congress affirmative
power by legislation to enforce an express prohibition on the States.
Judicial power was not specified but the power of Congress. The
judicial power could have acted without such a clause. The

Fourteenth Amendment is not merely a prohibition on State action. It
made Negroes citizens of the United States and of the States. This is
decidedly affirmative. This citizenship may be protected not only by
the judicial branch of the government but by Congressional
legislation of a primary or direct character. It is in the power of
Congress to enforce the affirmative as well as the prohibitive
provisions of this article. The acceptance of any doctrine to the
contrary," continued Justice Harlan, "would lead to this anomalous
result: that whereas prior to the amendments, Congress with the
sanction of this court passed the most stringent laws—operating
directly and primarily upon States and their officers and agents, as
well as upon individuals—in vindication of slavery and the right of the
master, it may not now, by legislation of a like primary and direct
character, guard, protect, and secure the freedom established, and
the most essential right of the citizenship granted, by the
constitutional amendments."

It did not seem to Justice Harlan that the fact that, by the second
clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, the States
are expressly prohibited from making or enforcing laws abridging the
rights and immunities of citizens of the United States, furnished any
sufficient reason for upholding or maintaining that the amendment
was intended to deny Congress the power, by general, primary, and
direct legislation, of protecting citizens of the several States, being
also citizens of the United States, against all discrimination, in
respect of their rights as citizens, which is founded on "race, color, or
previous condition of servitude." "Such an interpretation," thought he,
"is plainly repugnant to its fifth section, conferring upon Congress
power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce not merely the
provisions containing prohibitions upon the States, but all of the
provisions of the amendment, including the provisions, express and
implied, in the first clause of the first section of the article granting
citizenship." The prohibition of the State laws could have been
negatived by judicial interpretation without the Fourteenth
Amendment on the ground that they would have conflicted with the
Constitution.

The court said the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to enact
a municipal code for the States. No one will gainsay this. This
Amendment, moreover, is not altogether for the benefit of the Negro.
It simply interferes with the local laws when they operate so as to
discriminate against persons or permit agents of the States to
discriminate against persons of any race on account of color or
previous condition of servitude. Of what benefit was it if it did not do
this? The constitutions of the several States had already secured all
persons against deprivation of life, liberty or property otherwise than
by due process of law, and in some form recognized the right of all
persons to the equal protection of the laws. If this be the correct
interpretation even, it does not follow that privileges which have been
granted by the nation, may not be protected by primary legislation
upon the part of Congress. Justice Harlan pointed out that it is for
Congress not the judiciary, to say that legislation is appropriate, for
that would be sheer usurpation of the functions of a coordinate
department. Why should these rules of interpretation be abandoned
in the case of maintaining the rights of the Negro guaranteed by the
Constitution?

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 could have been maintained on the
ground that it regulated interstate passenger traffic, as one of the
cases, Robinson and Wife v. Memphis and Charleston Railroad
Company, showed that Robinson a citizen of Mississippi had
purchased a ticket entitling him to be carried from Grand Junction,
Tennessee, to Lynchburg, Virginia. This case substantially presented
the question of interstate commerce but the court reserved the
question whether Congress in the exercise of its power to regulate
commerce among the several States, might or might not pass a law
regulating rights in public conveyances passing from one State to
another. The court undertook to hide behind the fact that this specific
act did not recite therein that it was enacted in pursuance of the
power of Congress to regulate commerce. Justice Harlan, therefore,
inquired: "Has it ever been held that the judiciary should overturn a
statute, because the legislative department did not accurately recite
therein the particular provision of the constitution authorizing its

enactment?" On the whole, the contrary is the rule. It is sufficient to
know that there is authority in the Constitution.

In this decision, too, there was the influence of the much paraded
bugbear of social equality forced upon the whites. To use the inns,
hotels, and parks, established by authority of the government and
the places of amusement authorized as the necessary stimulus to
progress, to buy a railroad ticket at the same window, ride in the
same comfortable car on a limited train rather than incur the loss of
time and suffer the inconvenience of inferior accommodations on a
slow local train; to sleep and eat in a Pullman car so as to be
refreshed for business on arriving at the end of a long journey, all of
this was and is today dubbed by the reactionary courts social
equality. Justice Harlan exposed this fallacy in saying: "The right, for
instance, of a colored citizen to use the accommodations of a public
highway, upon the same terms as are permitted to white citizens, is
no more a social right than his right, under the law, to use the public
streets of a city or a town, or a turnpike road, or a public market, or a
post office, or his right to sit in a public building with others, of
whatever race, for the purpose of hearing the political questions of
the day discussed."

What did the Negro become when he was freed? What was he
when, according to section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, he
became by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?[24] From
what did the race become free? If Justice Bradley had been
inconveniently segregated by common carriers, driven out of inns
and hotels with the sanction of local law, and deprived by a mob of
the opportunity to make a living, would he have considered himself a
free citizen of this or any other country? "A colored citizen of Ohio or
Indiana while in the jurisdiction of Tennessee," contended Justice
Harlan, "is entitled to enjoy any privilege or immunity, fundamental in
citizenship, which is given to citizens of the white race in the latter
State. Citizenship in this country necessarily imports at least equality
of civil rights among citizens of every race in the same State." In
United States v. Cruikshank[25] it was held that rights of life and

personal liberty are natural rights of man, and that "equality of the
rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism."

Inconsistency of the Court

In the case of Hall v. DeCuir[26] the court reached an important
decision when an Act of Louisiana passed in 1869 to give
passengers without regard to race or color equality of right in the
accommodations of railroad or street cars, steamboats or other
water crafts, stage coaches, omnibusses or other vehicles, was
declared unconstitutional so far as it related to commerce between
States.[27] Here a person of color had been discriminated against by
a Mississippi River navigation company which was called to answer
before a United States court for violating this act.

Giving the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Waite said: "We think it
may be safely said that State legislation which seeks to impose a
direct burden upon inter-state commerce, or to interfere directly with
its freedom does encroach upon the exclusive power of Congress.
The statute now under consideration in our opinion occupies that
position." "Inaction by Congress," the court held, "is equivalent to a
declaration that interstate commerce shall remain free and
untrammelled." This meant that the carrier was "at liberty to adopt
such reasonable rules and regulations for the disposition of
passengers upon his boat, while pursuing her voyage within
Louisiana or without, as seemed to him best for the interest of all
concerned. The statute under which this suit is brought, as construed
by the State court, seeks to take away from him that power so long
as he is within Louisiana, and while recognizing to the fullest extent
the principle which sustains a statute unless its unconstitutionality is
clearly established, we think this statute to the extent that it requires
those engaged in the transportation of passengers among the
several States to carry colored persons in Louisiana in the same
cabin with whites is unconstitutional and void. If the public good
requires such legislation it must come from Congress and not from
the States."

Justice Waite here expressed his fear as to the delicate ground on
which he was treading in saying: "The line which separates the
powers of the States from this exclusive power of Congress is not
always distinctly marked, and oftentimes it is not easy to determine
on which side a particular case belongs. Judges not infrequently
differ in their reasons for a decision in which they concur. Under such
circumstances it would be a useless task to undertake to fix an
arbitrary rule by which the line must in all cases be located. It is far
better to leave a matter of such delicacy to be settled in each case
upon a view of the particular rights involved." Thus the way was left
clear to vary the principle of interpretation according to the color of
the citizens whose rights might be involved.

In view of the subsequent decisions in separate car cases,
moreover, the following portion of Justice Waite's opinion as to a
clause in the law involved in the case of Hall v. DeCuir is unusually
interesting. "It does not act," said he, "upon the business through the
local instruments to be employed after coming within the State, from
without or goes out from within. While it purports only to control the
carrier when engaged within the State it must necessarily influence
his conduct to some extent in the management of his business
throughout his entire voyage. We confine our decision to the statute
in its effect upon foreign and interstate commerce, expressing no
opinion as to its validity in any other respect."[28]

With the rapid expansion of commerce in the United States and the
consequent necessity for regulation both by the State and the United
States, no power of Congress was more frequently questioned than
that to regulate commerce and no litigant concerned in such
constitutional questions easily escaped the consequences of the
varying interpretation given this clause by the United States
Supreme Court. The court, of course, accepted as a general
principle that there are three spheres for the regulation of commerce,
namely: that which a State cannot invade, that which the State may
invade, when Congress has not interfered, and that which is
reserved to the State in conformity with its police power. But as late
as 1886 the nationalistic school found some encouragement in the

decision of the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v.
Illinois[29] given by Justice Miller. He said: "Notwithstanding what is
there said, that is, in the decisions of Munn v. Illinois; C. B. and Q. R.
R. Company v. Iowa, and Peik v. Chicago and N. W. R. R. Co.,[30]
this court held and asserted that it had never consciously held
otherwise, that a statute of a State intended to regulate or to tax, or
to impose any other restriction upon the transmission of persons or
property or telegraphic messages, from one State to another, is not
within the class of legislation which the States may enact in the
absence of legislation by Congress; and that such statutes are void
even as to the part of such transmission which may be within the
State." Chief Justice Waite, and Justice Bradley and Justice Gray,
however, dissented for various reasons.

In the Louisville Railway Company v. Mississippi,[31] however, in
1899, the court, evidently yielding to southern public opinion,
reversed itself by the decision that an interstate carrier could not run
a train through Mississippi without attaching thereto a separate car
for Negroes and had the audacity to argue that this is not an
interference with interstate commerce.[32] To show how inconsistent
this interpretation was one should bear in mind that in Hall v. DeCuir
the court had held that this was exactly what a State could not do in
that the statute acted not upon business through local instruments to
be employed after coming into the State, but directly upon business
as it comes into the State from without or goes out from within,
although it purported only to control the carrier when engaged within
the State. It necessarily influenced the conduct of the carrier to some
extent in the management of his business throughout his entire
voyage. "No carrier of passengers," said the court in Hall v. DeCuir,
"can conduct his business with satisfaction to himself, or comfort to
those employing him, if on one side of a State line his passengers,
both white and colored, must be permitted to occupy the same cabin,
and on the other to be kept separate. Uniformity in the regulation by
which he is to be governed from one end to the other of his route is a
necessity in his business, and to secure it, Congress, which is
untrammelled by State lines, has been invested with exclusive
legislative power of determining what such regulation should be."

Giving the opinion in the Mississippi case, however, Justice Brewer
said: "It has been often held by this court that there is a commerce
wholly within the State which is not subject to the constitutional
provision and the distinctions between commerce among the States
and the other class of commerce between citizens of a single State
and conducted within its limits exclusively is one which has been
fully recognized in this court, although it may not be always easy,
where the lines of these classes approach each other, to distinguish
between the one and the other."[33] He might have added some other
comment to the effect that this court will not definitely draw the line of
distinction between such classes of commerce since it desires to
leave adequate room for evasion, because it had been unusually
easy to find such a line in cases in which the rights of Negroes were
concerned and such definite interpretation might interfere with the
rights of white men. Justices Harlan and Bradley dissented on the
grounds that the law imposed a burden upon an interstate carrier in
that he would be fined if he did not attach an additional car for race
discrimination, and that the opinion was repugnant to the principles
set forth in that of Hall v. DeCuir.

The United States Supreme Court finally reached the position of
following the decision of Ex Parte Plessy which justified the
discrimination in railway cars on the grounds that it is not a badge of
slavery contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment. This decision, in
short, is: So long, at least, as the facilities or accommodations
provided are substantially equal, statutes providing separate cars for
the races do not abridge any privilege or immunity of citizens or
otherwise contravene the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. In such matters equality and not identity or
community of accommodations is the extreme test of conformity to
the requirements of the amendment. The regulation of domestic
commerce is as exclusively a State function as the regulation of
interstate commerce is a Federal function. The separate car law is
an exercise of police power in the interest of public order, peace and
comfort. It is a matter of legislative power and discretion with which
Federal courts cannot interfere.

In Hennington v. Georgia,[34] it was later emphasized that it had been
held that legislative enactments of the States, passed under the
admitted police powers, and having a real relation to the domestic
peace, order, health, and safety of their people, but which by their
necessary operation, affect, to some extent, or for a limited time, the
conduct of commerce among the States, are yet not invalid by force
alone of the grant of power of Congress to regulate such commerce;
and, if not obnoxious to some other constitutional provision or
destructive of some right secured by the fundamental law, are to be
respected in the courts of the Union until they are superseded and
displaced by some act of Congress passed in execution of power
granted to it by the Constitution. Of course, there was no other
provision to which such laws could be contrary after the Supreme
Court had whittled away the war amendments.

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson[35] the most inexcusable
inconsistency of the court was shown when the persons of color
aggrieved attacked the separate car law of Louisiana on the ground
that it conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment. Giving the opinion
of the court, Justice Brown said: "So far, then, as a conflict with the
Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the
question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation,
and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion
on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of
reasonableness it is at liberty to act with reference to the established
usages, customs and traditions of the people, and with a view to the
promotion of the public peace and good order. Gauged by this
standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even
requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is
unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment
than the acts of Congress requiring separate schools for colored
children in the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which
does not seem to have been questioned or the corresponding acts of
State legislatures."

Justice Harlan dissented, saying that he was of the opinion that the
Statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with personal liberty of white and

black in that State and hostile to both in the letter and spirit of the
Constitution of the United States. Justice Harlan rightly contended
that laws can have no regard to race according to the Constitution. If
they do, they conflict with the rights of State and national citizenship
and with personal liberty. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments removed race from our governmental system. But what
has the court to do with the policy or expediency of legislation? "A
statute may be valid, and yet upon grounds of public policy, may well
be characterized as unreasonable." Accordingly Mr. Sedgwick, a
distinguished authority, says: "The Courts have no other duty to
perform than to execute the legislative will, without regard to their
views as to the wisdom or justice of the particular enactment."
"Statutes," said Justice Harlan, "must always have a reasonable
construction. Sometimes they are to be construed strictly;
sometimes, liberally, in order to carry out the legislative will. But,
however construed, the intent of the legislature is to be respected."

The decisions in the cases of M. K. and T. Railway v. Haber[36] and
Crutcher v. Kentucky,[37] are of some importance. In these cases the
court reiterated the doctrine that the regulation of the enjoyment of
the relative rights and the performance of the duties, of all persons
within the jurisdiction of a State belong primarily to such a State
under its reserved power to provide for the safety of all persons and
property within its limits; and that even if the subject of such
regulations be one that may be taken under the exclusive control of
Congress, and be reached by national legislation, any action taken
by the State upon that subject that does not directly interfere with
rights secured by the Constitution of the United States or by some
valid act of Congress, must be respected until Congress intervenes.
[38] The court by this time, however, had all but held that the
Constitution secured to the Negro no civil or political rights except
that of exemption from involuntary servitude, and that law for the
Negro is the will of the white man.

Further development of the doctrine as to the right of the State to
deprive a Negro of citizenship is brought out in the Lauder Case.[39]
The case was this: Lauder's wife purchased a first class ticket from

Hopkinsville to Mayfield, both places within the State of Kentucky.
She took her place in what was called the "ladies' coach" and was
ejected therefrom by the conductor and assigned a seat in a
smoking car, which was alleged to be small, badly ventilated,
unclean and fitted with greatly inferior accommodations. This road
ran from Evansville, Indiana, to Hopkinsville, Kentucky. It was held in
the Court of Appeals that the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Louisville, New Orleans and Railway v. Mississippi[40] and
Plessy v. Ferguson[41] was conclusive of the constitutionality of the
act so far as the plaintiffs were concerned; and that the mere fact
that the railroad extended to Evansville, in the State of Indiana, could
in no wise render the statute in question invalid as to the duty of the
railroad to respect it.

In the case of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Kentucky,
[42] this doctrine was carried to its logical conclusion. The question
was whether a proper construction of the separate car law confines
its operation to passengers whose journeys commence and end
within the boundaries of the State or whether a reasonable
interpretation of the act requires Negro passengers to be assigned to
separate coaches when traveling from or to points in other States. In
other such cases the Supreme Court of the United States had
interpreted the local law as applying only to interstate commerce.
The language of the first section of the Kentucky statute made it very
clear that it applied to all carriers. The first section of the Kentucky
law follows:
"Any railroad company or corporation, person or persons, running or otherwise
operation of railroad cars or coaches by steam or otherwise, in any railroad line or track
within this State, and all railroad companies, person or persons, doing business in this
State, whether upon lines or railroads owned in part or whole, or leased by them; and
all railroad companies, person or persons, operating railroad lines that may hereafter
be built under existing charters, or charters that may hereafter be granted in this State;
and all foreign corporations, companies, person or persons, organized under charters
granted, or that may be hereafter granted by any other State, who may be now, or may
hereafter be engaged in running or operating any of the railroads of this State, whether
in part or whole, are hereby required to furnish separate coaches or cars for travel or
transportation of the white and colored passengers on their respective lines of railroad."

Any sane man can see that this law undertook to regulate interstate
commerce. Justice Brown, however, tried to square the opinion with

that of the Kentucky Supreme Court, upholding the law on the
grounds that it was constitutional in as much as it applied only to
intrastate passenger traffic, although the law plainly applies also to
interstate traffic.

Speaking further for the court, Justice Brown said: "Indeed we are by
no means satisfied that the Court of Appeals did not give the correct
construction to this statute in limiting its operation to domestic
commerce. It is scarcely courteous to impute to a legislature the
enactment of a law which it knew to be unconstitutional and if it were
well settled that a separate coach law was unconstitutional, as
applied to interstate commerce, the law applying on its face to all
passengers should be limited to such as the legislature were
competent to deal with. The Court of Appeals has found such to be
the intention of the General Assembly in this case, or at least, that if
such were not its intention, the law may be supported as applying
alone to domestic commerce. In thus holding the act to be severable
it is laying down a principle of construction from which there is no
appeal."

"While we do not deny the force of the railroad's argument in this
connection, we cannot say that the General Assembly would not
have enacted this law if it had supposed it applied only to domestic
commerce; and if it were in doubt on that point, we should
unhesitatingly defer to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, which
held that it would give it that construction if the case called for it. In
view of the language above quoted it would be unbecoming for us to
say that the Court of Appeals would not construe the law as
applicable to domestic commerce alone, and if it did, the case would
fall directly within the Mississippi Case.[43] We, therefore, feel
compelled to give it that construction ourselves and so construe it
that there can be no doubt as to its constitutionality." Here we have a
plain case of the United States Supreme Court declaring an act
severable because thereby it could apparently justify as
constitutional a measure depriving the Negroes of civil and political
rights, whereas in some other cases it has held other acts not
severable to reach the same end.

The court continued its reactionary course. In Chiles v. Chesapeake
and Ohio R. R. Company[44] the court reiterated that "Congressional
inaction is equivalent to a declaration that a carrier may, by its
regulations, separate white and Negro interstate passengers. In
McCabe v. Atchinson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company,[45]
Justice Hughes giving the opinion of the court, followed the Plessy v.
Ferguson decision. He did not believe, moreover, "that the
contention that an act though fair on its face may be so unequally
and oppressively administered by the public authorities as to amount
to an unconstitutional discrimination by the State itself, is applicable
where it is the administration of the provisions of a separate coach
law by carriers, which is claimed to produce the discrimination. The
separate coach provisions of Oklahoma[46] apply to transportation
wholly intrastate in absence of a different construction by State
courts and do not contravene the commerce clause of the Federal
court. The court held, however, that so much of the Oklahoma
separate coach law as permits carriers to provide sleeping cars,
dining cars, and chair cars for white persons, and to provide no
similar accommodations for Negroes, denies the latter the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution.

The most recent case, that of the South Covington and Cincinnati
Street Railway, Plaintiff in error v. Commonwealth of Kentucky shows
another step in the direction of complete surrender to caste. This
company was a Kentucky corporation, each of the termini of the
railroad of which was in Kentucky. The complainant hoped to prevent
the segregation of passengers carried from Ohio into Kentucky. The
decision was that a Kentucky street railway may be required by
statute of that State to furnish either separate cars or separate
compartments in the same car for white and Negro passengers
although its principal business is the carriage of passengers in
interstate commerce between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Kentucky across
the Ohio River. Such a requirement affects interstate commerce only
incidentally, and does not subject it to unreasonable demands. In
other words, this inconvenience to the carrier is not very much and
the humiliation and burden which it entails upon persons of color

thus segregated should not concern the court, although they are
supposed to be citizens of the United States.

Justice Day dissented and Justices Van DeVanter and Putney
concurred on the ground that the attachment of a different car upon
the Kentucky side on so short a journey would burden interstate
commerce as to cost and in the practical operation of the traffic. The
provision for a separate compartment for the use of only interstate
Negro passengers would lead to confusion and discrimination. The
same interstate transportation would be subject to conflicting
regulation in the two States in which it is conducted. They believed
that it imposed an unreasonable burden and according to the
dissentients was, therefore, void.

Justice in the Courts.

One of the most important constitutional rights denied the Negroes is
that of justice in the courts. In as much as their former masters felt
enraged against the freedmen because of their sudden release from
bondage, they too often perpetrated upon the freedmen crimes for
which the Negro had no redress in courts, for white persons
constituted the accusers, the prosecutors, the judges, and the juries.
Immediately following the Civil War, before the amendments of the
Constitution enacted in the special behalf of the race were effected,
Negroes were by the Black Codes deprived of all of the rights of
citizens and nothing bore more grievously upon them than the
deprivation of the right to serve on juries. Some States had special
laws carrying out this prohibition. The first case of consequence
requiring an interpretation of the State law to this effect was that of
Strauder v. West Virginia,[47] already mentioned above. In this case
the court took high constitutional ground. It was held that "a law of
West Virginia limiting to white persons, twenty-one years of age and
citizens of the State, the right to sit upon juries, was a discrimination
which implied a legal inferiority in civil society, which lessened the
security of the right of the colored race, and was a step toward
reducing them to a condition of servility." The right of a man of color
that, in the selection of jurors to pass upon his life, liberty, and

property, there shall be no exclusion of his race and no
discrimination against them because of color, was asserted in a
number of cases, to wit: Virginia v. Rives,[48] Neal v. Delaware,[49]
Gibbons v. Kentucky.[50]

In the case of Bush v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky[51] the Negro
faced an additional difficulty in that the court held that wherein there
was no specific law excluding persons from service upon juries
because of their race or color, that the petitioner would have to show
evidence to that effect. In the case of Smith v. The State of
Mississippi[52] it was held that the omission or refusal of officers to
include Negro citizens in the list from which jurors might be drawn is
not, as to a Negro subsequently brought to trial, a denial of equal
protection of laws. In the case of Murray v. The State of Louisiana[53]
the decision was that the fact that a law confers on the jury
commissioners judicial power in the selection of citizens for jury
service, does not involve a conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States, although in the exercise of
such power they might not select Negroes for jury service.

The case of Williams v. Mississippi was more interesting. The law of
that State prescribed the qualifications of voters and of grand and
petit juries and invested the administrative officers with a large
discretion in determining what citizens have the necessary
qualifications. As it appeared that in the use of their discretion they
would exclude Negroes from such juries it was contended that the
act of Mississippi was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
court held, however, that the Mississippi law could not be held
repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment merely on a showing that
the law might operate as a discrimination against the Negro race, in
absence of proof of an actual discrimination in the case under
consideration. This ground has often proved convenient for the
Supreme Court of the United States in dodging the question whether
or not the Negroes must be protected in the rights guaranteed them
by the Constitution.

This case was decided in 1897 and two years later Mr. Justice Gray,
giving the opinion of the court in the case of Carter v. Texas,[54] said
that the exclusion of all persons of African race from a grand jury
which finds an indictment against a Negro in a State court, when
they are excluded solely because of their race or color denies him
the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, whether such
exclusion is done through the action of the legislature, through the
courts, or through the executive or administrative officers of the
State. This was substantially the position taken in the case of
Strauder v. West Virginia twenty years earlier.

The Negroes received some encouragement, too, from the decision
of Rogers v. Alabama.[55] It was held that there had been a denial of
the equal protection of the laws by a ruling of a State court upon the
motion to quash an indictment on account of the exclusion of
Negroes from the grand jury list, which motion, though because of its
being in two printed octavos, was struck from the files under the
color of local practice for prolixity, contained an allegation that certain
provisions of the newly adopted State constitution, claimed to have
the effect of disfranchising Negroes because of their race, when
such action worked as a consideration in the minds of the jury
commissioners in reaching their decision. The court held in Martin v.
The State of Texas, however,[56] that a discrimination against
Negroes because of their race in the selection of grand or petit jurors
as forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment is not shown by written
motion to quash, respectively, the indictment of the panel of petit
jurors, charging such discrimination where no evidence was
introduced to establish the facts stated in the omissions. It is not
sufficient merely to prove that no persons of color were on the jury.

As certain States wished to make the government further secure in
the elimination of Negroes from juries, after making the qualifications
for voters unusually rigid so as to exclude persons of African
descent, they easily established the same qualifications for jurors, to
relieve persons of color also from that service. In the case of Franklin
v. South Carolina[57] the court held that there was no discrimination

against Negroes because of their race in the selection of the grand
jury made by the laws of South Carolina,[58] giving the jury
commissioner the right to select electors of good moral character
such as they may deem qualified to serve as jurors, being persons of
sound mind and free from all legal exceptions. A motion, therefore, to
quash an indictment against a Negro for disqualification of the grand
jurors who must be electors, because of a change in the State
constitution of South Carolina respecting the qualifications of
electors, did not violate the Act of Congress, June 25, 1868, and,
therefore, did not present to the Supreme Court of the United States
a question of a denial of Federal right where there is nothing in the
record to show that the grand jury as actually impaneled contained
any person who was not qualified as an elector under the earlier
State constitution, which was, according to the allegation, so made
up as to exclude Negroes on account of their color. The Supreme
Court of the United States then took no account of the intent or the
spirit of the law maker as this tribunal had been accustomed to do in
cases of constitutional import and left upon the Negro the burden of
performing the difficult task of showing that he had been
discriminated against on account of his color when the discrimination
could be easily effected without the possibility of his actually
producing any evidence that on the face of itself could convince the
court.

Suffrage

As already mentioned above the Negroes during this period were
struggling to retain the right of suffrage and, of course, were
attacking in the courts those restrictions primarily directed toward the
elimination of the Negroes from the electorate. The Supreme Court
of the United States generally shrank from these cases by
disclaiming jurisdiction. In Ex Parte Siebold,[59] Ex Parte Yarborough,
[60] and In re Coy,[61] however, the general jurisdiction of Federal
courts over matters involved in the election of national officers was
affirmed. The court held that it had jurisdiction in the election case in
Wiley v. Sinkler,[62] when there was brought an action to recover
damages of an election board for wilfully rejecting a citizen's vote for

a member of the House of Representatives. In Swafford v.
Templeton[63] a suit was brought for damages for the alleged
wrongful refusal by the defendants at an election of officers to permit
the plaintiff to vote at a national election for a member of the House
of Representatives. It was held that the court had jurisdiction.

From the Supreme Court of the United States, however, the Negroes
received little encouragement, in as much as the right of suffrage,
with its requirements of property ownership and the literacy test,
could be withheld from the Negro without specifically discriminating
against any one on account of race or color. In Southy v. Virginia,
181 U. S., Revised Statutes, of the United States, Cont. St. 1901,
pages 37-42, providing that every person who prevents, hinders,
controls or intimidates another from exercising the right of suffrage,
to whom that right is guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, by means of bribery, etc., shall be
punished, was held invalid as it was considered to be beyond the
constitutional power of Congress to act in such a case except in that
of race discrimination. If the discrimination is in a State or municipal
election, however, Congress may intervene, if the discrimination is
shown, but not until then.

In the case of Giles v. Harris[64] there was brought to the Supreme
Court a bill in equity, complaining that Negroes qualified to vote for
members of Congress had been refused on account of their color by
virtue of the Alabama constitution, whereas white men were
registered to vote at such an election. Relief was asked for on the
basis of the Revised Statutes, Sec. 1979, praying that the Supreme
Court should order that the petitioner be registered and declare null
and void the special clause of the Alabama constitution. The court
answered this petition with certain observations disclaiming
jurisdiction largely for "want of merit in the averments which were
made in the complaint as to the violation of Federal rights."

The court held that if the registrars acting at this election in Alabama
had no authority under the new constitution, which the petitioner
prayed that the court might declare null and void, they could not

legally register the plaintiff. If they had authority, they were within
their right to use their discretion. If this clause in the constitution
should be struck down according to the prayer of the plaintiff, there
would be no board to which the mandamus could be issued. The
Supreme Court, therefore, held that no damage had been suffered
because no refusal to register by a board constituted in defiance of
the Federal Constitution could disqualify a legal voter otherwise
entitled to exercising the electorate franchise, since this amounts to
a decision upon an independent non-Federal ground sufficient to
sustain the judgment without reference to the Federal question
presented. It observed, moreover, that the bill imported that the great
mass of the white population intended to keep the blacks from
voting. To meet such an intent something more than ordering the
plaintiff named to be inscribed upon the lists of 1902 would be
needed.

Giving his dissenting opinion in this case, Justice Brewer showed
that "although the statute and these decisions thus expressly limit
the range of inquiry to the question of jurisdiction, it was held that
there is a constitutional question shown in the pleadings. The
certificate, therefore, might be ignored and the entire case presented
to the court for consideration.... Hence every case coming up on a
certificate of jurisdiction may be held to present a constitutional
question and be open for full inquiry in respect to all matters
involved." Brewer would not assent to the proposition that the case
presented was not a strictly legal one and entitling a party to a
judicial hearing and decision. "He is a citizen of Alabama entitled to
vote. He wanted to vote at an election for a Representative in
Congress. Without registration he could not, and registration was
wrongfully denied him. That many others were thus treated does not
deprive him of his right or deprive him of relief." Justice Harlan
dissented also giving practically the same argument as that of
Justice Brewer. He observed: "The court in effect says that although
it may know that the record fails to show a case within the original
cognizance of the Circuit Court, it may close its eyes to that fact, and
review the case on its merit." In view of the adjudged cases, he
could not agree that the failure of parties to raise a question of

jurisdiction relieved this court of its duty to raise it upon its own
motion.

There was thereafter presented a petition for modification of
judgment and for a rehearing June 1, 1903. The court ordered the
decree of affirmance changed adding these words: "So far as such
decree orders that the petition be dismissed, but without prejudice to
such further proceedings as the petitioner may be advised to make."

The case of Giles v. Teasley[65] was, to some extent, of the same
sort. A Negro of Alabama who had previously been a voter and who
had complied with the reasonable requirements of the board of
registration, was refused the right to vote, for, as he alleged, no
reason other than his race and color, the members of the board
having been appointed and having acted under the provision of the
State constitution of 1901. He sued the members of the board for
damages and for such refusal in an action, and applied for a writ of
mandamus to compel them to register him, alleging in both
proceedings the denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution
and that the provisions of the State Constitution were repugnant to
the Fifteenth Amendment. The complaint had been dismissed on
demurrer and the writ refused, the highest court of the State holding
that if the provisions of the constitution were repugnant to the
Fifteenth Amendment, they were void and that the board of registers
appointed thereunder had no existence and no power to act and
would not be liable for a refusal to register him, and could not be
compelled by writ of mandamus to do so; that if the provisions were
constitutional, the registrars had acted properly thereunder and their
action was not reviewable by the courts.

"The right of the Supreme Court to review the decisions of the
highest court of a State," said the national tribunal, "is even in cases
involving the violations by the provisions of a State constitution of the
Fifteenth Amendment, circumscribed by rules established by law,
and in every case coming to the court on writ of error or appeal the
question of jurisdiction must be answered whether propounded by
the counsel or not. Where the State court decided the case for

reasons independent of the Federal right claimed its action is not
reviewable on writ of error by the United States Supreme Court." It
was held that the writs of error to this court should be dismissed, as
such decisions do not involve the adjudication against the plaintiff in
error of a right claimed under the Federal Constitution but deny the
relief demanded on grounds wholly independent thereof." In Wiley v.
Sinkler, and Swafford v. Templeton, the registrars were legally
averred to be qualified.[66]

In the Maryland case of Pope v. Williams[67] the court further
explained its position. While the State cannot restrict suffrage on
account of color, the privilege is not given by the Federal
Constitution, nor does it spring from citizenship of the United States.
While the right to vote for members of Congress is derived
exclusively from the law of the State in which they are chosen but
has its foundation in the laws and Constitution of the United States,
the elector must be one entitled to vote under its statute. A law,
therefore, requiring a declaration of intention to become citizens
before registering as voters of all persons coming from without
Maryland is not a violation of the Constitution.

In the case of Guinn v. United States[68] the court held that the
literacy test was legal and not subject to revision but in this clause of
the constitution that part of a section providing for literacy was
closely connected with the so-called grandfather clause that the
United States Supreme Court declared both unconstitutional as it did
in the case also of Myers v. Anderson,[69] coming from Annapolis,
Maryland, and in the case of The United States v. Mosely, from
Oklahoma.[70] The clause referred to follows:
"No person shall be registered as an elector of this State or be allowed to vote in any
election herein, unless he be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of
the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior
thereto, entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at that time resided in
some foreign nation, and no lineal descendant of such person, shall be denied the right
to register and vote because of his inability to read and write sections of such
constitution. Precinct election inspectors having in charge the registration of electors
shall enforce the provisions of this section at the time of registration, provided
registration be required. Should registration be dispensed with, the provisions of this
section shall be enforced by the precinct officer when electors apply for ballots to vote."

The court held that this was a standard of voting which on its face
was in substance but a revitalization of conditions which when they
prevailed in the past had been destroyed by the self-operative force
of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Educational Privileges

These suffrage laws left the Negroes in an untoward situation for the
reason that there was little hope that, with the educational facilities
afforded them, that they would soon be able to meet the same
requirement of literacy as that which might not embarrass the whites
offering themselves as jurors and electors. The States upheld in their
action by the United States Supreme Court, had shifted from their
shoulders the burden of the uplift of the Negro by the ingenious
doctrine that equal accommodations did not mean identical
accommodations and that the spirit and the letter of the law would be
complied with by providing separate accommodations for Negroes.
In the end, however, separate accommodations turned out to be in
some cases no accommodations at all.

This was the situation as it was brought out in the case of Cumming
v. The Board of Education of Richmond County.[71] It appeared that a
tax for schools had been levied in this district. The Negroes objected
to paying that portion of the tax which provided for the maintenance
of a high school, the benefits of which they were denied, when there
was no high school provided for them. The board of education of
Richmond County had maintained a high school for Negroes but
abolished it. The petitioner prayed, therefore, that an injunction be
granted against the collection of such portion of the school tax as
was used for the maintenance of said high school. The defendant set
up the plea that it had not established a white high school, but had
merely appropriated some money to assist a denominational high
school for white children, saying "that it had to choose between
maintaining the lower schools for a large number of Negroes and
providing a high school for about sixty." The board of education,
declared, moreover, that the establishment of a Negro high school
was merely postponed.

The opinion of the court was that a decision by a State court,
denying an injunction against the maintenance by a board of
education of a high school for white children, while failing to maintain
one for Negro children also, for the reason that the funds were not
sufficient to maintain it in addition to needed primary schools for
Negro children, does not constitute a denial to persons of color of the
equal protection of the law or equal privileges of citizens of the
United States. The court held that under the circumstances disclosed
it could not say that this action of the State court was, within the
meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, a denial by the State to the
plaintiffs and to those associated with them of the equal protection of
the laws, or of any privileges belonging to them as citizens of the
United States. While the court admitted that the benefits and
burdens of public taxation must be shared by citizens without
discrimination against any class on account of their race, it held that
the education of people in schools maintained by State taxation is a
matter belonging to the respective States, and any interference on
the part of Federal authority with the management of such schools
cannot be justified except in case of a clear unmistakable disregard
of rights secured by the supreme law of the land.

This is downright sophistry. To any sane man it could not but be
evident that this was an "unmistakable disregard of rights secured by
the Supreme law of the land." The school authorities had separated
white and Negro children for purposes of education on account of
race and had, moreover, refused to grant the Negro children the
facilities equal to those of the white. The State, in the first place, in
establishing separate schools on the basis of race, violated a right
guaranteed the Negro race by the Constitution of the United States,
and the board of education of Richmond County violated still another
in failing to provide for the Negroes the same facilities for high school
education as those furnished the whites while taxing all citizens
without regard to race. It is true that the Federal Government cannot
generally interfere in matters of police regulation of persons and
property in the States but when the matter of race is introduced the
national authority is thoroughly competent within the Constitution to
restrain such local government or any group of persons so

authorized by such government. It would have been unwise for the
court to enjoin the collection of such a tax but it could have on the
constitutional points raised in this case declared invalid laws
separating the races for purposes of education.

The sophistry of the Supreme Court in seeking to justify its refusal to
maintain the rights of the Negro to education is still more evident
from its opinion in the case of Berea College v. The Commonwealth
of Kentucky, decided in 1908. Berea College was established in
1856 by a group of antislavery Kentucky mountaineers, led by John
G. Fee, desiring to bring up their children in the love of free
institutions. There were no Negro students prior to the Civil War but
a few Negro soldiers were admitted on returning home from the front
in their uniforms and members of the race were thereafter welcomed
at Berea. In the course of time, however, this coeducation of the
races became very distasteful to the State of Kentucky with its
decided increase in race prejudice necessitating in their economy a
thorough proscription of the Negro race. In 1904, therefore, the State
of Kentucky enacted a law against persons and corporations
maintaining schools for both white persons and Negroes.

Feeling that its charter was violated by this law and also that it
infringed upon the rights guaranteed the Negro in the Constitution of
the United States, Berea College attacked the validity of this
measure in the inferior courts and finally in the Supreme Court of the
United States. The plaintiff unanswerably contended that this
Kentucky law abridged one's privileges and immunities, in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, which was a limitation on the police power of the State when
it brings in the matter of race. It further contended that the
Constitution makes no distinction between races and that the
Fourteenth Amendment is not only to protect Negroes but to protect
white persons in the enjoyment of their rights. The plaintiff admitted
that social equality could not be enforced by legislation but
contended that voluntary social equality of persons cannot be
constitutionally prohibited, unless it is shown that such is immoral,
disorderly, or for some other reason so palpably injurious to the

public welfare as to justify direct interference with the personal liberty
of the citizens.

Evidently wishing to find some ground upon which it could base its
opinion upholding the Supreme Court of Kentucky which had
sustained this statute, the Supreme Court of the United States fell
back upon various principles of interpretation. The court said it would
not disturb the judgment of the State court resting on Federal or non-
Federal grounds, if the latter was sufficient to sustain the decision in
as much as the State court determines the extent of the limitations of
powers conferred by the State on its corporations. It directed
attention to the fact that a corporation is not entitled to all the
immunities to which individuals are entitled and a State may withhold
from its corporations privileges and powers of which it cannot
constitutionally deprive individuals. A State statute limiting the
powers of corporations and individuals may be constitutional as to
the former, although unconstitutional as to the latter; and if separable
it will not be held unconstitutional in the instance of a corporation
unless it clearly appears that the legislature would not have enacted
it as to corporations separately. "The same rule," continues the court,
"which permits separable sections of a statute to be declared
unconstitutional without rendering the entire statute void applies to
separable provisions of a section of a statute. In coming to the
assistance of the Supreme Court of Kentucky the national tribunal
said the prohibition of Kentucky against persons and corporations
maintaining schools for both white persons and Negroes is
separable and, even if an unconstitutional restraint as to individuals,
is not unconstitutional as to corporations, it being within the power of
the State to determine the powers conferred upon its corporations.

The court conceded that the reserve power to alter, or amend
charters is subject to reasonable limitations but insisted that the
Kentucky law includes no alteration or amendment which defeats or
substantially impairs the object of the grant of vested rights. The
court then went almost out of its way to say that "a general statute
which in effect alters or amends a charter is to be construed as an
amendment for all even if not in terms so designated. The court

conceded that a statute which permits the education of both whites
and Negroes at the same time in different localities, although
prohibiting their attendance in the same place, does not defeat the
object of a grant to maintain the college for all persons and is not
violative of the contract clause of the Federal Constitution, the State
law having reserved the right to repeal, alter and amend charters.

Justice Harlan dissented. He referred to the fact that the court held
also, in Huntington v. Werthen,[72] that if one provision of a statute be
invalid the whole act will fall, where "it is evident the legislature
would not have enacted one of them without the other." Harlan
meant to say here that to construe this law as applying only to
corporations and not to individuals would give it an interpretation that
the legislature never had in mind. The intention of the State
legislature was to prevent all coeducation of Negroes and whites
whether it should be done by persons or corporations. The whole
law, therefore, should fall. Justice Harlan conceded that a State
reserved the right to repeal the charter but it was not repealed by this
act. The statute did not purport even to amend the charter of any
particular corporation but assumed to establish a certain rule
applicable alike to all individuals, associations, or corporations that
teach the white and black races together in the same institution. This
decision of the United States Supreme Court was then nothing more
than "fine sophistry" to sanction an arbitrary invasion of the rights of
liberty and property guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Harlan contended that if the giving of instruction is not a
property right, it is one's liberty. Exposing the sophistry of the court
he remarked that if the schools must be subjected to such
segregation, why not also the Sabbath Schools and Churches? "If
States can prohibit the coeducation of the whites and blacks it may
prohibit the association of the Anglo-Saxons and Latins; of the
Christians and the Jews. Have we become so inoculated with
prejudice of race," continued Justice Harlan, "that an American
government, professedly based on the principles of freedom, and
charged with the protection of all citizens alike, can make distinctions
between such citizens in the matter of their voluntary meeting for

innocent purposes simply because of their respective races? Further
if the lower court be right, then a State may make it a crime for white
and colored persons to frequent the same market places, at the
same time, or appear in an assembly of citizens convened to
consider questions of a public or political nature in which all citizens
without regard to race, are equally interested."

The Right to Labor

Although the Negro by these various decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States had been deprived of rights essential to freedom
and citizenship in matters of voting, service upon juries, education,
and the use of common carriers, there remained even another right
which was to be infringed upon without the hope of any redress from
the United States Supreme Court. This was the right to contract, to
labor. Every honest man should live by his own labor and it is a well
established principle of democratic government, that in the exercise
of this right the individual should be free not only from interference
on the part of the government but should enjoy protection from
individuals subject to the government. Because of the development
of race prejudice into a flame of bitter antagonism among the
laboring men during the period of commercial expansion in the
United States since the Reconstruction period, the country has been
all but thoroughly organized through trades unions, so as to restrict
the Negro to menial service by written constitutions in keeping with
the caste which has so long figured conspicuously in American
institutions.

Negroes sought redress in the courts and finally in the United States
Supreme Court, the best case in evidence being that of Hodges v.
United States.[73] In this case came a complaint from certain
Negroes in Arkansas laboring in the service of an employer
according to a contract. Because of their color certain criminals in
that community conspired to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate
them, resulting in the severance of their connection with this
employer and the consequent economic loss resulting therefrom.
The Negroes thus complaining brought this case to the United States

Supreme Court contending that a remedy for this evil was to be
found in the revised statutes of the United States Senate, Sections
1977, 1979, 5508, and 5510. These sections follow in the order of
their importance:
Section 5508. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate
any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by
the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the
same; or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of
another, with intent to hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so
secured, they shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars and imprisoned not
more than ten years, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to any office, or place
of honor, profit or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Other statutes referred to but not so vital were:
Section 1977. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the
same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue the
parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for
the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be
subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every
kind, and to no other.

Section 1978. All citizens of the United States shall have the same right in every State
and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell,
hold, and convey real and personal property.

Section 1979. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities, secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress.

Section 5510. Every person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, subjects or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory
to the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunities, secured or protected by the
Constitution and laws of the United States or to different punishments, pains or
penalties, on account of such inhabitants being an alien, or by reason of his color, or
race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be punished by a fine of
not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not more than one year, or by
both.

The decision in this case was in substance that Congress cannot
make it an offense against the United States for individuals to
combine or conspire to prevent even by force, citizens of African
descent, solely because of their race, from earning a living, although

the right to earn one's living in all legal ways and to make lawful
contracts in reference thereto is a vital point of freedom established
by the Constitution. Section 5508 had been upheld in Ex Parte
Yarborough,[74] and in the case of Logan v. the United States[75] the
court referred to this section as having been upheld in Ex Parte
Yarborough. In United States v. Reese, moreover,[76] Justice Waite
said in 1875, speaking for the court, "The rights and immunities
created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States
can be protected by Congress. The form and the manner of the
protection may be such as Congress in the legitimate exercise of its
legislative discretion shall provide. This may be varied to meet the
necessities of the particular right to be protected."

"The whole scope and effect of this series of decisions," continued
the court, "was that, while certain fundamental rights recognized and
declared but not granted or created, in some of the amendments to
the Constitution are thereby guaranteed only against violation or
abridgement by the United States, or by the States, as the case may
be, and cannot, therefore, be affirmatively enforced by Congress
against unlawful causes of individuals; yet that every right created
by, arising under, or dependent upon the Constitution of the United
States may be protected and enforced by Congress by such means
and in such manner as Congress in the exercise of the correlative
duty of protection, or of the legislative powers conferred upon it by
the Constitution, may in its discretion deem most eligible and best
adopted to attain the object." This doctrine was sustained also by the
decision in the case of United States v. Waddell,[77] and Motes v.
United States.[78] Here it was emphatically stated that Congress
might pass any law necessary or proper for carrying out any power
conferred upon it by the Constitution.

The court here, however, evaded the real question as before,
dodging behind the doctrine that while a State or the United States
could not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens,
individuals or groups of individuals may do so and Congress has no
power to interfere in such matters since these come within the police
power of the State. In other words, the government cannot

discriminate against the Negro itself, but it can establish agencies
with power to do it. It is not surprising that Justice Harlan dissented,
feeling as he had on former occasions that this decision permitted
the States and groups of individuals supposedly subject to the
government of those States to fasten upon the Negro badges or
incidents of slavery in violation of the civil rights guaranteed him by
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. He believed that
Congress had the right to pass any law to protect citizens in the
enjoyment of any right granted him by Congress. The duty of the
Federal government as Justice Harlan saw it was very clear in that
the State had caused the race question to be injected therein and in
such a case Congress always has power to act.

On the whole, however, the United States Supreme Court has not
yet had the moral courage to face the issue in cases involving the
constitutional rights of the Negro. Not a decision of that tribunal has
yet set forth a straightforward opinion as to whether the States can
enact one code of laws for the Negroes and another for the other
elements of our population in spite of the fact that the Constitution of
the United States prohibits such iniquitous legislation. In cases in
which this question has been frankly put the court has wiggled out of
it by some such declaration as that the case was improperly brought,
that there were defects in the averments, or that the court lacked
jurisdiction.

In the matter of jurisdiction the United States Supreme Court has
been decidedly inconsistent. This tribunal at first followed the opinion
of Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Osborn v. United States
Bank,[79] that "when a question to which the judicial power of the
United States is extended by the Constitution forms an ingredient of
the original cause it is in the power of Congress to give the Circuit
Courts the jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact
or of law may be involved." Prior to the rise of the Negro to the status
of so-called citizenship the court built upon this decision the
prerogative of examining all judicial matters pertaining to the Federal
Government until it made itself the sole arbiter in all important
constitutional questions and became the bulwark of nationalism.

After some reaction the court resumed that position in all of its
decisions except those pertaining to the Negro; for in the recent
commercial expansion of the country involving the litigation of
unusually large property values, the United States Supreme Court
has easily found grounds for jurisdiction where economic rights are
concerned; but just as easily disclaims jurisdiction where human
rights are involved in cases in which Negroes happen to be the
complainants.

The fairminded man, the patriot of foresight, observes, therefore,
with a feeling of disappointment this prostitution of an important
department of the Federal Government to the use of the reactionary
forces in the United States endeavoring to whittle away the
essentials of the Constitution which guarantees to all persons in this
country all the rights enjoyed under the most progressive democracy
on earth. Since the Civil War the United States Supreme Court
instead of performing the intended function of preserving the
Constitution by democratic interpretation, has by its legislative
decisions practically stricken therefrom so many of its liberal
provisions and read into the Constitution so much caste and
autocracy that discontent and radicalism have developed almost to
the point of eruption.

C. G. Woodson

FOOTNOTES:
[1] McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 416.

[2] Ibid., 416.

[3] Ibid., 416.

[4] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard, 399.

[5] 16 Peters, 539, 612.

[6] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard, 399.

[6a] 21 Howard, 506.

[7] 6 Howard, 344.

[8] 94 U.S., 113.

[9] 16 Wall., 678.

[10] This was held in Township of Queensburg v. Culver (19 Wall., 83), in
Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott (19 Wall., 666), and in Massachusetts
in Worcester v. Western R. R. Corporation (4 Met., 564).

[11] Storey on Bailments, Sec. 475-6, and Rex v. Ivens, 7 Carrington &
Payne, 213; 32, E. C. L., 495.

[12] 16 Wall., 36.

[13] 100 U. S., 303.

[14] 100 U. S., 306.

[15] 103 U. S., 386.

[16] Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 346-7.

[17] 14 statutes, 27, Chapter 31.

[18] 16 statutes, 140, Chapter 114.

[19] 109 U. S., 1.

[20] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.
S., 318; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 339.

[21] 6 Cranch, 128.

[22] 99 U. S., 418.

[23] United States v. Reese, 92 U. S., 214; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100
U. S., 303.

[24] Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall., 418; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Washington,
D. C., 371; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168; Slaughter-house cases, Ibid.,
36.

[25] 92 U. S., 542.

[26] 95 U. S., 487.

[27] The Louisiana Act was:

Section—. All persons engaged within this State in the business of
common carriers of passengers, shall have the right to refuse to
admit any person to their railroad cars, street cars, steamboats or
other water-crafts, stage coaches, omnibusses, or other vehicles, or
to expel any person therefrom after admission, when such persons
shall, on demand, refuse or neglect to pay the customary fare, or

when such person shall be of infamous character or shall be guilty,
after admission to the conveyance of the carrier, of gross, vulgar, or
disorderly conduct, or who shall commit any act tending to injure the
business of the carrier, prescribed for the management of his
business, after such rules and regulations shall have been made
known: Provided, said rules and regulations make no discrimination
on account of race or color, and shall have the right to refuse any
person admission to such conveyance where there is not room or
suitable accommodation; and, except in cases above enumerated,
all persons engaged in the business of common carriers of
passengers are forbidden to refuse admission to their conveyance,
or to expel therefrom any person whomsoever.

Section 4. For a violation of any provision of the first and second
sections of this act, the party injured shall have right of action to
recover any damage, exemplary as well as actual, which he may
sustain, before any court of competent jurisdiction. Acts of 1869,
page 77; Rev. Stat. 1870, page 93.

[28] Mr. Justice Clifford concurred in the judgment but went into details to
justify the segregation whereas the opinion of the court merely tried to
see whether the details conflicted with the power of Congress to regulate
commerce.

[29] 118 W. S., 557.

[30] All of these are in 94 U. S.

[31] 133 U. S., 587.

[32] This was the law of Mississippi:

Sec. 1. "Be it enacted, That all railroads carrying passengers in this
State (other than street railroads) shall provide equal, but separate
accommodation for the white and colored races by providing two or
more passenger cars for each passenger train, or by dividing the
passenger cars by a partition, so as to secure separate
accommodations."

Sec. 2. That the conductors of such passenger trains shall have
power and are hereby required to assign each passenger to the car
or the compartment of a car (when it is divided by a partition) used
for the race to which said passenger belongs; and that, should any
passenger refuse to occupy the car to which he or she is assigned
by such conductor, said conductor shall have the power to refuse to
carry such passenger on his train and neither he nor the railroad
company shall be liable for any damages in any event in this State.

Sec. 3. That all railroad companies that shall refuse or neglect within
sixty days after the approval of this act to comply with the
requirements of section one of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a

misdemeanor and shall upon conviction in a court of competent
jurisdiction, be fined not more than five hundred dollars; and any
conductor that shall neglect to, or refuse to carry out the provisions
of this act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than twenty-five
nor more than fifty dollars for each offense.

Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act be, and
the same are hereby repealed, and this act to take effect and be in
force from and after passage. Acts of 1888, p. 48.

[33] 133 U. S., 592.

[34] 163 U. S., 317.

[35] Ibid., 537.

[36] 169 U. S., 613, 645.

[37] 141 U. S., 61.

[38] In Pa. R. R. Co. v. Hughes (191 U. S., 489), Justice White says:

"In the absence of Congressional legislation upon the subject an act
of the Alabama legislature to require locomotive engineers to be
examined and licensed by a board to be appointed by the governor
for that purpose was sustained in Smith v. Alabama" (124 U. S.,
465).

[39] 179 U. S., 393.

[40] 133 U. S., 587.

[41] 163 U. S., 537.

[42] 179 U. S., 388, 391.

[43] 133 U. S., 588.

[44] 218 U. S., 71.

[45] 235 U. S., 151.

[46] U. S., 18, 1907 Revised Statutes, 1910, Section 860, et seq.

[47] 100 U. S., 303.

[48] Ibid., 313.

[49] 103 U. S., 370.

[50] 162 U. S., 565.

[51] 107 U. S., 110.

[52] 162 U. S., 592.

[53] 163 U. S., 101.

[54] 167 U. S., 442.

[55] 192 U. S., 226.

[56] 200 U. S., 316.

[57] 218 U. S., 161.

[58] Laws of South Carolina, 1902, page 1066, section 2.

[59] 100 U. S., 371.

[60] 110 U. S., 651.

[61] 127 U. S., 731.

[62] 179 U. S., 58.

[63] 185 U. S.

[64] 189 U. S., 475.

[65] 193 U. S., 146.

[66] The Constitution of Mississippi prescribing the qualifications for
electors conferred upon the legislature the power to enact laws to carry
those provisions into effect. Ability to read any section of the Constitution
or to understand it when read was made a qualification necessary to a
legal voter. Another provision made the qualifications for grand or petit
jurors that they should be able to read and write. Upon the complaint of
Negroes thus disabled the court held that these provisions do not on their
face discriminate between white and Negro races and do not amount to a
denial of the equal protection of the law secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution. It had not been shown that their actual
administration was evil, but that only evil was possible under them.

In Washington County, Mississippi, Williams had been indicted for murder
by a grand jury composed of white men altogether. He moved that the
indictment be quashed because the law by which the grand jury was
established was unconstitutional. (Williams v. Mississippi.)

[67] 193 U. S., 621.

[68] 238 U. S., 347.

[69] Ibid., 368.

[70] Ibid., 763.

[71] 175 U. S., 528.

[72] 120 U. S., 102.

[73] 202 U. S., 1.

[74] 110 U. S., 651.

[75] 144 U. S., 236, 286, 293.

[76] 92 U. S., 214, 217.

[77] 110 U. S., 651.

[78] 178 U. S., 458, 462.

[79] 9 Wheaton, 738.

REMY OLLIER, MAURITIAN JOURNALIST
AND PATRIOT[1]
It is of interest to the Negro to know the patriots of the race who have
blazed the path of social progress in the various lands in which their
lots have been cast. Not to all men is it given to be great as the world
counts greatness. Each of us, however, may have a task which, if
well done, may leave its impress upon the life of the community in
which we live. These, although obscure, efforts of the talented and
persevering are the monuments which silently mark the progress of
the race. Remy Ollier was one of these obscure personalities; but
yet, a man whose career made such contributions to the life of
Mauritius that he is regarded by its people as one of the great figures
in its political history. He was an educator, a journalist, a patriot, and
in some respects a liberator of his people.

Mauritius is an island under British control situated in the Indian
Ocean. It is 550 miles east of Madagascar, which lies off the east
coast of Africa. Under the control of the French, it was known as Ile
de France. It is mountainous in character and its scenery is most
beautiful and picturesque. Its inhabitants may be divided into two
main divisions: Europeans, chiefly French and British; and African
and Asiatic peoples. French appears to be more commonly spoken
than English, which accounts for the fact that the writings of Remy
Ollier were in French.

The island was discovered by the Portuguese navigator,
Mascarenhas in 1505. Until the sixteenth century the island
remained under the control of Portugal. In 1598, the Dutch seized it
and named it "Mauritius" in honor of its stadholder, Count Maurice of
Nassau. The Dutch built a fort there, introduced slaves and convicts,
but they made no permanent settlements and, in 1710, it was
abandoned. For a short time the island passed into the hands of the
French East India Company, and later it became a crown colony.

During the colonial wars between France and Great Britain,
Mauritius was a source of much conflict. It was finally captured by
the British in 1810; and by the Treaty of Paris in 1814, the British
were definitely granted control of the island. Great Britain agreed,
however, that the inhabitants should retain their own laws, customs,
religion and language, all of which were of French origin.

In 1833 slavery was abolished in the British possessions. The
Reformed Parliament forced by the denunciation of antislavery
orators led by William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and Granville
Sharp, enacted a bill providing that Negro slavery should gradually
cease in the colonies, and that a compensation of £20,000,000
should be paid to the slaveholders. There were then enacted laws
removing proscription and the Negroes were supposed to enjoy the
same political rights as the whites; but the latter sought to make
themselves the dominant element in Mauritius. In 1834 there were
about 66,000 Negroes on the island, which ten years later had a
population of 158,462.[2] Indian coolies were brought in to take the
place of Negro slaves and many evils attended their introduction.
The situation was then as it was later in the United States when the
adjustment of freedmen to their new life was accompanied by painful
experiences on the part of both freedmen and their former masters.
The planters resented the presence of the freedmen and as far as
possible their privileges were curtailed.[3] Militant agitators arose
then among the Negroes demanding justice for the oppressed.
Among these leaders thus promoting the march of the Negro
population of Mauritius toward freedom were Adrien d'Epinay, whose
prominence is attested by a monument to be erected in his memory,
and Remy Ollier, who still lives in the hearts of his countrymen.

Remy Ollier was born at Grand Port on the island of Mauritius,
October 16, 1816, six years after the conquest of the island by the
English. He was the fourth child of Benoit Ollier, an artillery officer.
His mother, J. Guillemeau, was a daughter of Dr. Guillemeau, a
physician, and formerly a member of the Legislative Council of the
island. When eight years of age, Ollier was sent to a private school
taught by Captain Rault, a seaman who had served under Louis XVI.

This work was supplemented by lessons every Saturday under the
Reverend Father Rock, who was impressed with the boy's ability,
and with the consent of his parents taught him the elements of
English and Latin. Allowed to use the library of Mr. Rault, Ollier early
became acquainted with the best literature. It is said that he had a
very retentive memory and that he could repeat and write at will long
passages from his favorite authors.

About 1832, an unexpected reverse in fortune reduced Ollier's father
to abject poverty, and he died of a broken heart. Ollier, now scarcely
sixteen, went to work as a clerk in a merchant's office; but his
mother, thinking that his future in a clerkship was limited, secured
him a place as an apprentice to a harness-maker. With a book in one
hand and an awl in the other, Ollier prepared himself for his future
career. Opportunities in the larger fields of life were closed to the
Negro population as stated in the words of Ollier "that young men of
the present generation could but become handicraftsmen. This is the
only field open to us. But we must try to educate ourselves by all
means; perseverance is the only key that opens the door to success.
At whatever social rank man may be placed, education alone may
confer upon him a superiority."

In 1833 there occurred an incident which proved to be a turning point
in his life. Several members of the white population were charged
with forming a conspiracy against British rule in the island. Rumor
had it further that they had gathered arms and ammunition, that they
expected to attack the British officials and restore the island to
France. They were imprisoned and were denied the writ of habeas
corpus. Young Ollier had developed a keen interest in politics and
asked the permission of his employer to pay the men a visit. Later,
he spent many of his working hours at the court trials to which he
seemed irresistibly drawn. His employer wrote his mother stating that
her son would never make a harness-maker; for he spent most of his
time either in study when in the shop or at the courts when he should
have been at work. His mother, whom he always loved, burned his
books and reprimanded him for his conduct. For some time, he
remained at the harness shop, but finally gave up the work in order

to pursue the study he desired. Through his former friend, Mr. Rault,
he obtained many books to replace the ones which he had lost by
the hasty action of his mother.

By tutoring the children in the village of Petite Riviere and in the town
of Port Louis, he managed to obtain a living. In 1837, he opened a
private school in St. George street. It appears that this venture was
not successful, for he soon accepted a position in a "boarding school
conducted by Mr. Louis Barthelemy Raynaud, a white Mauritian
Professor who did not scruple to teach the young generations of the
white as well as of the colored population." When not engaged in
tutoring at this school and the neighboring schools for young ladies,
Ollier might be found devouring books on metaphysics, morals,
criticism and politics. He was asked by several private institutions to
give lessons in English, French and Geography; but while teaching
others, he himself was studying with Mr. H. N. D. Beyts, who twice
filled the post of officer administering the government. Ollier
continued his work as a teacher until 1839. At the end of the school
year, prizes were distributed, and he had the pleasure of presenting
a prize to Miss Louis Sidonie Ferret whom he married in December,
1840.

About a year before his marriage, he bought the school from Mr.
Raynaud, with the idea of enlarging it according to his own plans; but
this project failed for some unknown reason. He then undertook a
trip to India, which seems to have been successful. On his return, he
entered business, opening two large stores. His associate did not
agree with him in his business plans and the business was dissolved
by legal process. He then resumed his position as a teacher in the
boarding schools. In 1841, he and his wife opened a school in the
western suburb of Port Louis where the Negro population could bring
their children for a liberal education upon the payment of a moderate
fee. This helped him for a time to solve some of his financial
problems but finally failed.

Ollier remained an insatiable reader. He took an active part in a
literary club in Port Louis, Le Société d'Emulation Intellectuelle, and

this association helped greatly to increase his knowledge of the
literary world. He read literature, history, travels, philosophy, politics
and such authors as Lamennais, Montesquieu, Diderot, Rousseau,
Voltaire, Adam Smith, Horace Say, Ricardo and the like. He read not
only because of his love of reading but because he was ambitious to
prepare himself for larger duties. The largest duty as he seemed to
see it was the freedom of his people from insult and injustice, and
the recognition of his people upon the same level as other
Mauritians. Before the edict of emancipation, the Legislative Council
on June 22, 1829, had granted the free population of color the same
civil rights and privileges as other Mauritians possessed, but the
local government had failed to carry out the enactment. Remy Ollier
felt that this was a blot on the fair name of his country, as well as an
affront to his people and longed to do his part in bringing about a
change, which he believed could be effected by a newspaper.

An unusual incident translated into action his idea of founding a
newspaper. Alexander Dumas had written a play entitled "Anthony,"
which is composed especially "to castigate morals by exposing vice
in opposition to virtue." A contributor to one of the two papers, Le
Mauricien, attacked the production of the play, and held up to ridicule
the police authorities, who were supposed to be vested with
censorial powers. He also criticized the author as a Negro glorifying
adultery. The Negroes of the island became indignant and several
answers were evoked. Remy Ollier presented a strong defense for
Dumas. Another vigorous defense was prepared by Evénor Hitie, a
writer of history. These articles were sent to the two papers of the
island: Le Cerneen and Le Mauricien, both of which refused to
publish them. An Englishman, Mr. Edward Baker, the owner of a
printing plant, printed the two answers and circulated them in tract
form.

The need of a newspaper became evident to the Negro population.
In the time of Ollier, the press was used chiefly for political purposes
rather than for the dissemination of information. Policies and parties
were aided or hindered by the press, and this was its principal
function. Le Balance had been the champion for the government and

the rights of the weaker groups; but the editor, Mr. Berquin, was
deported in 1833 because of utterances which were considered
inimical to the policies of the colonial government. Since 1833, there
had been no paper to champion the rights of the Negroes.

After the publication of the answers to the contributor of Le
Mauricien, certain influential members of the Negro population,
among whom was Remy Ollier, called to see Sir Lionel Smith,
G.C.B., Baronet and Governor of the island of Mauritius. It is said
that they were warmly received, and that he was astonished to learn
that the Negroes, a majority of whom were "the equals of the whites
by their stature, by their hearts and their intelligence," had no paper
"to make known their wishes and their complaints." He advised his
hearers to start a paper, and he promised to support their reasonable
demands. But, dying in 1842, Sir Lionel Smith was unable to give
any assistance to the new publication.

Through the assistance of Mr. Edward Baker, the printer, the paper
Le Sentinelle de Maurice was started. The prospectus, written in
French and in English appeared March 21, 1843, and on Saturday,
April 8, the first number of the paper came from the press. It was a
weekly publication with Ollier and Baker as the editors. The former
wrote articles in French and the latter in English, the articles of each
being admirably written. Each one in his own sphere spoke with
great vehemence and elevation of mind for the cause of "liberty and
justice." The paper was read with avidity by the middle and lower
classes, and the Negroes soon regarded Ollier as their champion.

The first and most important fight which Ollier felt called upon to
enter was the nomination by the Governor of members to the
Legislative Council in June, 1843. Ollier noticed that no Negro
member was nominated. The vacant seat was given to a white
representative, Mr. Forster. Ollier observed "that although a white
man whose heart is right and whose intentions are pure can
represent the population of color," yet he considered the
appointment "as an act that was unjust, impolitic, undemocratic and
unconstitutional." He added in explanation that the act was unjust

"because all the children of the mother-country, the white colonists
especially, were already represented in the Council, except the men
of color, whose number is twice that of other populations of the
country; their destiny more illustrious, and the high state of their
experience, their education, their intelligence and their morals are
the same as with others; impolitic, because it discontents and
disheartens the loyal and faithful British subjects and might alienate
from the government the hearts of those who have invariably
remained attached to it; undemocratic, and unconstitutional because
the British constitution makes no exception of any person, and
because it desires that all its subjects should have an equal part in
its benefits."

In 1843, Ollier determined to have his paper appear three times a
week, and for this purpose he bought the printing plant of La
Balance, the paper which had been forced to suspend its publication
ten years before. On the top of the first page of the paper, the royal
arms of Great Britain were placed with the motto "Honi soit qui mal y
pense! Dieut et mon droit!" He dedicated the paper to a strict
vigilance over the abuse of power, "to redress the grievances of the
weak and to encourage merit in all classes, creed or color." Those
who now assisted him in the editorial work besides Mr. Baker, who
edited the English page, were his wife, Emile Sandapa, and Emile
Bouchet, a lawyer, who later defended Ollier when he was sued for
libel. His editorials framed in animating language aroused his
countrymen from their inaction and awakened in them new hopes
and aspirations.

Ollier again attacked the government and the party in power,
because no place was made for the Negro element in its civil
service. In the first issue of La Sentinelle, he wrote, "From day to day
the Maurician Press develops a system entirely dangerous and
which seems to have this for a foundation—to discredit and debase
English institutions and the English Government in the eyes of all.
Here are the consequences of this system—the government
believing that the opinions of the press are those of all the
inhabitants of Maurice, has seen in us enemies rather than loyal and

faithful subjects, whence this continual defiance which has driven up
to now the people of color from all the public employment.... The
organs of this country are all in accord in saying that the government
of the United Kingdom is pernicious to us, that it long since desires
and plans our ruin; and when our riches and our prosperity proclaim
openly the falseness of these allegations, they wish that England,
who makes possible this well-being for us, may not have a deep
indignation against those who do not have even enough generosity
to recognize the benefits of their mother-country.... As for us, our
mission is to call all parties of our population to a united
intelligence...." On October 22, 1844, he exclaimed, regarding racial
distinctions: "Education levels everything. An erudite man in any
class is equal to any other man having the same degree of
education; he is a demi-god and is superior to kings, when the latter
are immersed in the darkness of ignorance."

Ollier continued the attacks upon the government because of its
discrimination against its citizens of color and yet he remained a
lover of his country. Not only did he agitate through the columns of
paper, but also through other available channels. In 1843, he drafted
a petition to which many signatures were attached and sent it to
Queen Victoria. This action has been called the death-blow to the
monopoly of the local parliament by the white population. The
petition was:
"May it please your Majesty,—On various occasions the British Throne has been
approached by individual members or collective bodies of the Mauritius community in
the exercise of that inestimable privilege of your Majesty's faithful subjects, the right of
petition; but hitherto, never has any prayer of the great majority of your Majesty's loyal
and attached subjects in this island been thus presented to your Majesty's attention.

"The colored classes of Mauritius, comprising a population of about 70,000, and
including at least one third of the island's wealth and intelligence, although not deprived
of any political right by the fundamental laws of the British realm, or by any act of Your
Majesty's Parliament, actually enjoy but few privileges of British subjects; and can
scarcely be said to have a political existence in the affairs of their native island.

"Your Majesty's petitioners will refer to the fact of no individual of the coloured classes
having a seat in the Council of Government; notwithstanding that there are many in the
island in every respect qualified by riches, talents, education, and moral character, to
occupy a place in that assembly.

"Whilst therefore gratefully recognizing the equity and impartiality of the British laws
and institutions, in which alone repose their best hopes for themselves and their
children, your Majesty's petitioners humbly and reverently approach Your Imperial
Throne with the prayer that, His Excellency the Governor of Mauritius may be
authorized to call to his council one or more representatives of the people of colour in
this island; or otherwise to grant to the country the privilege of electing its own
representatives. Your Majesty's petitioners will only add the sincere declaration of their
loyal and patriotic attachment to Your Majesty's person and Throne and Government;
and your petitioners will ever pray."

In 1843, the editor of Le Cerneen, the oldest newspaper in the
colony, was prosecuted, fined and imprisoned for publishing a
defamatory article against the magistrate of Port Louis. Ollier had
always advocated the freedom of the press, and he protested
against the law which suppressed free speech, and against the
persecution of a fellow-journalist, although the latter was his political
enemy. Ollier's biographer adds: "Ollier indeed was an ardent lover
and a good hater. This noble heart and comprehensive mind made
him understand his duty toward men. He forgot enmity when
fundamental principles were not adequately observed."

In 1844, there was established a rival newspaper, l'Esprit Public, to
combat the policies of Remy Ollier. It was edited by Mr. Bruils, who
had been educated in Europe as a lawyer. He began by finding fault
with the style and grammatical form of Ollier's writing, but it is said
that the subject-matter of his editorials could be rarely attacked.
Ollier's writings were always hasty and he rarely took the time to
polish them, while Bruil's style was more smooth and uniform.
Ollier's style, however, was easy and original. He replied effectively
to the invective of his enemies in prose and in verse. He seems to
have had no difficulty in the composition of his sentences nor did he
take the pains which would seem to be necessary for the average
man to acquire the finished journalistic style. His motto was as he
wrote a page "une feuille lue aujourd'hui, oubliée demain."
Therefore, he gave his copies to the compositors without rereading
them. Concerning the correctness of his writings, his biographer
writes: "Like Carlyle, Shelly, Bossuet, Mirabeau and Moliere, the
editor of La Sentinelle perpetrated many a small sin against the rules
of grammar and certainly paid but a halting attention to the nice
distinctions of punctuation. He very often did not know where to end

a paragraph and begin another. On the whole, he is happily not
obscure." His main effort was to state his idea and when he had
made his statement, he was not as careful as he should have been
regarding the construction of the statement. He consoled himself
with the words, "Grammar is of man; the idea is of God."

His enemies, however, could not say that he was trying to overthrow
the empire, for he was merely struggling for the liberty guaranteed by
the empire. "In all the British Empire," said he, "there are no subjects
more loyal than we. We are English today, we are not a conquered
people, we are English people." He was convinced that if England
would give the rights of Englishmen to the Mauritians, she would find
them "as devoted as any children she could count in her bosom." He
added, however, "We belong to England. Why do we not possess
the institutions of England? If she wishes to make us love our
nationality, to endow our island with that which makes for the glory of
our mother-country; this, we shall not be able to know or appreciate
if we are strangers to all that which makes it cherish its children and
respect its people! At the sight of our institutions, in the presence of
the happenings in Mauritius, advancements ruined, individual liberty
violated, human life despised, one cannot believe that we belong to
an English administration, and that we are a part of the most
democratic people in the world."

It was agitation of this type which brought about what may be
considered the definite contributions of Remy Ollier to Mauritian life:
the creation of the Municipality, the Chambers of Commerce and
Agriculture, the opening of credits to the Negroes by the Mauritian
Commercial Bank, the reforms at the Royal College respecting the
English Scholarships, and the employment of men of color in the
departments of the government. His attacks upon capital punishment
and barbarous prison treatment resulted in laws which mitigated the
former harsh conditions, and his criticism of the banking institutions
in the crisis of 1843 led to considerable reform in that quarter. His
bitter attacks on political and social conditions made many enemies.
One evening, he was waylaid by several assailants and given a

whipping. He was imprisoned, but he wrote in prison as well as
elsewhere.

His political activity was short, for in the early part of 1845, about two
years after his appearance in journalism, he died at the early age of
28 years, after a short illness due to an inflammation of the
intestines. Stoically he bore the bitter effects of his courageous
utterances; and when death came to him after only a short period of
endeavor, both in the interests of his own people, and also of the
weaker classes of all groups, the success of his efforts had just
begun to appear. The name of Remy Ollier in Mauritian history,
therefore, symbolizes perseverance in the face of great obstacles,
agitation as an instrument of social progress, patriotism as it relates
to the island of Mauritius, and justice respecting all classes and
races. In 1916, the centenary of his birth was celebrated in Port
Louis. Then it was that the city and island demonstrated its love and
gratitude for Ollier, because of the services which he rendered the
colony in general and the population of color in particular. Remy
Ollier was one of the unknown leaders in the cause of freedom.

Charles H. Wesley

FOOTNOTES:
[1] This sketch is drawn largely from a pamphlet, presented to the
Association for the study of Negro Life and History by the author A. F.
Fokeer. The author states that he has not had access to all the material
which he desired to use, for when he applied to the municipality for one
of the books concerning Ollier, he received an answer stating "that books
written by Mauritians, and published in the colony are by no means to be
lent to anybody." Therefore, the source from which most of our
information is secured is A Biographical Sketch of the Life, Work and
Character of Remy Ollier by A. F. Fokeer, published by the General
Printing and Stationery Cy. Ld., 23 Church Street, Mauritius. 1917.

[2] Earlier figures are not available.

[3] General information concerning the island may be obtained from the
following: Martin, The British Possessions in Africa, Vol. IV.; Unienville,
Statistique de l'île Maurice et ses dépendances; Epinay, Renseignements
pour servir à l'histoire de l'île de France; Decotter, Géographie de
Maurice et de ses dépendances; Chalmers, A History of Currency in the
British Colonies; Anderson, The Sugar Industry of Mauritius; Keller,
Madagascar, Mauritius, and other East African Islands; The Mauritius
Almanac; The Mauritius Civil Lists; and Annual Colonial Reports.

A NEGRO COLONIZATION PROJECT IN
MEXICO, 1895
The Negro question touched the relations of the United States and
Mexico at several points. For instance, the escape of runaway slaves
into Mexico where slavery was legally forbidden, was a factor in
causing disturbances along the Rio Grande between 1850 and 1860.
[1] Again, during the following decade when the colonization of the
freedmen became a vital issue, there was at least one proposal to
settle them on the border between the United States and Mexico. It
was urged that a strip of land extending from the Rio Grande to the
Colorado and westward to the mountains of New Mexico be set
apart by the national government for this purpose. On January 11,
1864, Honorable James H. Lane of Kansas actually introduced a bill
looking to this end, which received favorable consideration from the
Committee on Territories, but so far as has been ascertained never
came to a vote in Congress.[2]

In support of his proposal Lane urged, among other things, that the
colonization of the Negroes on this frontier would prove beneficial to
Mexico and tend to promote friendship between that country and the
United States. "We can thus plant at the door of Mexico," he said,
"four million good citizens, who can step in at any time, when invited,
to strengthen the hands of that Republic."[3] In similar vein the
territorial committee, of which Lane was chairman, declared: "It is
desirable to cultivate friendly relations with the people of Mexico. It is
known to us that among that people there are no prejudices against
the black man, and that intermarriage is not prohibited either by law
or custom.... It is confidently believed that the colony provided for in
this bill, by intermarriage with the people of those Mexican States,
and friendly intercourse with them, would so Americanize them as
that they would be prepared and seek an annexation to our then
glorious free republic."[4]

The project which is the subject of this paper had no official element
motivating it, however. It was merely a private enterprise conducted
for the profit of a Mexican land company and a member of the Negro
race;[5] and not until the scheme had failed did the United States
government take a hand. On December 11, 1894, H. Ellis,[6] a
Negro, entered into a contract with the "Agricultural, Industrial, and
Colonization Company of Tlahualilo, Limited," for the transportation
from the United States by February 15, 1895, of one hundred
colored families between the ages of twelve and fifty. The company
obligated itself to pay the passage of the colonists provided it did not
exceed $20, and after they were established upon the land, to
furnish them agricultural implements, stock, seed, and housing
quarters, as well as $6 monthly during the first three months, and
thereafter a sum later to be agreed upon. Each family was to be
given sixty acres for cultivation, forty for cotton, fifteen for corn, and
five for a garden.[7] The company was to receive 40% of the yield of
cotton and corn, the colonists 50%, and Ellis 10%. The colonists
were to have two years in which to pay for their passage; but, of
course, the money advanced for sustenance was to be paid from the
first crop, except in the event of an extremely lean year. The entire
produce of the garden was to go to the Negroes. Stores were to be
established in the colony, the colonists were to have their cotton
ginned at the gins of the company at the rate of $1.50 per bale, and
the company was to be given preference on all the produce sold.
The contract was to endure for a period of five years.[8]

Ellis set about immediately to fulfil his agreement. Going among the
Negroes of Alabama and Georgia, he issued a rather extravagant
circular representing his proposition as presenting the "greatest
opportunity ever offered to the colored people of the United States to
go to Mexico, ... the country of 'God and Liberty.'" He declared that
the land of his company would easily produce a bale of cotton and
from fifty to seventy-five bushels of corn per acre; spoke of irrigation
facilities which made them independent of the rain, of "fine game,
such as deer, bear, duck, and wild geese, and all manner of small
game, as well as opossum," and of schools and churches to be
constructed; and sought especially to impress upon their minds the

fact that "the great Republic of Mexico extends to all of its citizens
the same treatment—equal rights to all, special privileges to none."[9]

A number of Negroes were soon attracted by the project and early in
February they were ready to set out. In fact, by the 6th a party had
already arrived at the hacienda of the company, situated some thirty
miles east of Mapimi, Durango, in a rather "wild and inaccessible
place" several miles from a railway. On the 25th of the same month
another group of colonists put in their appearance, making a total of
about 816.

It is interesting to note the section from which the Negroes came,
and the size and composition of the families which they brought.
Twelve of the number came from Griffin, Georgia; all the rest were
from one of seven towns in Alabama; namely, Tuscaloosa, Gadsen,
Williams, Eutaw, Carter, Johns, and Birmingham. Of these towns
Tuscaloosa furnished by far the greater number, while Eutaw,
Gadsen, and Birmingham came next. Only a comparatively small
number came from Williams, Carter, and Johns. Instead of having
some three or four members as apparently designed in the original
contract, some of the families numbered six, eight, and even twelve;
and the number of women and children was disproportionately large.

When the colonists arrived at the hacienda they found the ground
covered with snow. They were crowded into small, leaky, adobe
houses, without floors and with doors which could not be closed
tightly. The remainder of the winter and the following spring proved
unusually rainy and unpleasant; the food which they were given was
probably of a somewhat inferior quality; and their tools were clumsy
and dull. These factors possibly account for their homesickness and
alleged indisposition to work. Moreover, the small number of able-
bodied workingmen among them was disappointing to the
colonization company. Naturally enough, mutual dissatisfaction led to
quarrels and difficulties. As was to be expected, too, sickness soon
visited the settlement, killing off large numbers and terrifying the rest.
A sort of liver disease broke out among them in April causing several

deaths, and this was followed early in July by the ravages of the
smallpox.[10]

The first epidemic was sufficiently terrifying to cause some of the
colonists to bolt their contract and attempt to return to the United
States. When the smallpox broke out it proved to be too much for
their sense of honor or any other restraining force. Those who were
able began precipitously to desert the settlement for the United
States, apparently giving no attention at all to the matter of
sustenance for the journey. By the latter part of July all had left
except about fifty of the most persistent and faithful who chose to
stay by their crops.[11]

The sufferings of these colonists while at Tlahualilo and on their way
to the Rio Grande furnished the press of the United States a
sensational topic which it immediately seized upon. Indeed, the first
report which reached the United States through official circles was
itself sufficiently exaggerated to create excitement. On May 21,
1895, two fugitives from the colony arrived at Chihuahua City where
they related stories of oppression and brutal cruelty. One of them
reported that upon arriving at the colony the Negroes "found
themselves in the worst form of bondage, with no hope of ever
securing liberty," and that no letter informing friends of their condition
and their suffering was ever permitted to reach the United States. He
said he was one of a party of some fifty who had stolen away in the
hope of making their escape. The other Negro declared that he was
the sole survivor of a party of about forty which had likewise run
away from the settlement, but had been overtaken and slain by a
band of Mexican guards in the employment of the colonizing
company. The consul of the United States at Chihuahua sent
immediate notice of the affair to the State Department.[12]

E. C. Butler, chargé of the United States in Mexico, was immediately
notified and directed to call upon the Mexican government to
investigate the affair.[13] Meantime the consular officers of the United
States began an investigation of their own which tended to convince
them that the extravagant rumors regarding the cruelties perpetrated

against the Negroes were totally unfounded. On June 24, the consul
at Piedras Negras, Jesse W. Sparks, forwarded a report which he
respectfully suggested should be given to the public "in order to
contradict the terrible stories of murder and bad treatment of these
Negroes ... and deter other Negroes who contemplate colonizing in
Mexico." It was based upon a sworn statement made by the
purported leader of the runaways, a deposition of another of the
colonists, and information received through a traveller from New York
City, who claimed to have visited the colony, as well as through a
civil engineer who was in the employment of the Mexican
International Railroad. From the information furnished by these
witnesses Sparks drew the conclusion that the Mexican colonization
company had lived up to its contract, that the Negroes had not been
cruelly treated while at the colony, and that the report concerning the
murder of a portion of the band[14] attempting to escape was
absolutely false. The Mexican soldiers alleged to have slain the
Negroes were in fact a relief party sent out by the company which,
being acquainted with the barren and desolate nature of the country
which would have to be crossed in reaching the United States,
surmised that the lives of the colonists were in danger.[15]

Those who left the settlement after the smallpox epidemic broke out
really suffered severely from lack of food. Without money and
without provisions, there would have been no alternative but
starvation or highway robbery, if the consular agents of the United
States had not come to the rescue. That they came and came
effectively is evinced by the fact that very few of the colonists
actually died of starvation. One hundred and twenty-five of the
Negroes arrived at Mapimi about July 19 and sent a delegation from
there to Torreón to appeal to the consul for aid.[16] The agent at this
place wrote to the consul at Durango for advice and help, while at
the same time he set about to raise funds by voluntary subscription.
The consul at Durango responded immediately with financial aid and
suggested that the Negroes seek employment; but the small number
of the group which was able to work seemed disinclined to do so;
and, to make matters worse, the smallpox continued its ravages and

in a measure precluded the possibility of obtaining employment even
if it had been desired.[17]

The consuls appealed at the same time to the authorities at
Washington who replied at first that there was no fund available for
the relief of the destitute citizens. As early as July 26, however,
General Bliss, who commanded the department of Texas, was
ordered to send a physician to help look after the sick and to place
1500 rations into the hands of Consul Sparks at Piedras Negras; and
the consul at Piedras Negras was directed, in case return to the
colony was not "practicable or consistent with humane
considerations," to endeavor to persuade the railroad companies to
transport the Negroes to their homes under the promise of receiving
remuneration as soon as Congress could be prevailed upon to make
an appropriation for that purpose.[18]

Meantime, the demoralized colonists were leaving their crops and
making their way first to Mapimi, and later to Torreón, where most of
them caught the Mexican International to Eagle Pass. Here they
were received in a quarantine encampment especially prepared for
them and given clothes, provisions, and medical attention until the
smallpox epidemic had been subdued. This required considerable
time and the expense was by no means small. Finally, by September
26, those who had been taken into quarantine first were ready to
leave, and on that date the Southern Pacific took aboard 167 of them
destined for New Orleans, from which point they were to be
transported by the Louisville and Nashville to Birmingham, Alabama.
On October 4, another group boarded the train; on October 10,
another; on October 22, still another; and on November 3, the last of
the encampment left Eagle Pass. The last party reached New
Orleans on the following day and perhaps arrived at Birmingham on
the 5th.[19]

Thus ended the colonization scheme of Ellis and the Mexican land
company. It had cost the United States Government more than
twenty thousand dollars. It had cost the Tlahualilo Company about
seven thousand. But the Negroes themselves had borne the greatest

losses. Seventy or more of their number had found graves on the
hacienda near Mapimi, 10 had died at Torreón, 8 while en route from
that station to Eagle Pass, and 60 in the encampment there, making
a total of about 148. Besides these, there were 250 not accounted
for and half as many more scattered and possibly separated for
years from their friends and relatives. Only 334 left Eagle Pass by
train for their homes in Alabama, while the Louisville and Nashville
records show that only 326 were taken aboard at New Orleans.
What fate overtook the small number who chose to remain with their
crops has not been ascertained.[20]

J. Fred Rippy

University of Chicago

FOOTNOTES:
[1] For a brief discussion of these disorders see the present writer's
"Border Troubles Along the Rio Grande, 1848-1860," in The
Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXIII, October, 1919, pp. 91-111.

[2] Sen. Jour., 38 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 66, passim.

[3] Cong. Globe, 38 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 673.

[4] Sen. Report No. 8, 38 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 2.

[5] This seems to have been only one of some three or four such
undertakings attempted at the time. See House Doc. No. 169, 54 Cong.,
1 Sess., pp. 44-45.

[6] Elsewhere written W. H. Ellis.

[7] Ellis's contract promised more than this in case of larger families.

[8] For the contract between Ellis and the company see House Doc. No.
169, 54 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 46-48; for that between Ellis and the
colonists see ibid., pp. 4-5. There are only a few minor differences in the
two.

[9] Ibid., p. 59.

[10] Dwyer's Report, and enclosures, ibid., pp. 42 ff.

[11] Ibid., pp. 23, 36, 42.

[12] Burke to Uhl, May 28, 1895, and enclosure, ibid., pp. 2-3.

[13] Olney to Butler, June 17, 1895, ibid., p. 5.

[14] It appears that only one band had tried to escape prior to July 18 or
19.

[15] Sparks to Uhl, June 24, 1895, and enclosure, ibid., pp. 6-11.

[16] Ibid., pp. 12, 16.

[17] Ibid., pp. 17-20.

[18] Sparks to Uhl, June 4, 1895, and enclosure, pp. 13-14.

[19] Ibid., p. 65.

[20] Sparks to Uhl, June 24, 1895, and enclosure, pp. 42, 65-66.

President Cleveland, in his message of December 2, 1895, urged an
appropriation for the reimbursements of the railroads, and on January 27,
1896, he sent a special message to Congress with reference to the
matter. Richardson, Messages and Papers, IX, 634, 664.

An appropriation for urgent deficiencies which was passed on February
26, 1896, contained the following interesting item: "For the payment of
the cost of transportation furnished by certain railway companies in
connection with the failure of the scheme for the colonization of negroes
in Mexico, necessitating their return to their homes in Alabama, ... five
thousand and eighty-seven dollars and nine cents." 29 U. S. Statutes at
Large, p. 18.

DOCUMENTS
JAMES MADISON'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE NEGRO

Like most of the Revolutionary leaders, James Madison, moved by
the social and political upheaval of that time thought seriously of the
liberation of the slaves, largely for economic reasons. He believed
that the country should depend as little as possible on the labor of
slaves, knowing that their labor was not sufficiently skillful to furnish
the basis for diversified industry. He considered slavery "the great
evil under which the nation labors."[1] On another occasion he
referred to it as a "portentous evil,"[2] and on still another "an evil,
moral, political, and economic, a sad blot on our free country."[3]
When, therefore, petitions for the abolition of slavery were presented
to the legislature of Virginia, he did not frown upon the proposal as a
mischievous agitation as did so many others. Madison looked
forward to the eventual extermination of slavery through gradual
methods of preparation for emancipation. Feeling that the thorough
incorporation of the blacks into the community of whites would be
prejudicial to the interests of the country, he had no other thought
than that of deportation as a correlative of emancipation. Along with
a number of others he discussed the proposal to set apart certain
western public lands for the transplantation of the blacks from the
slave holding States to free soil, but as the white man by his
pioneering efforts so rapidly pushed the frontier to the west as to
convince the country of the need of that territory for expansion,
Madison soon receded from this position and advocated along with
most of the leading men of his time the colonization of the Negroes
in Africa.

Madison did not feel that there was any sure ground upon which
Congress might participate in the emancipation and the colonization
of the Negroes. He suggested that the constitution be amended. He
even doubted that the Ordinance of 1787, enacted without authority,

had the effect of the emancipation of the slaves and was finally of
the opinion that the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in any
territory during its territorial period, "depends on the clause in the
constitution specially providing for the management of these
subordinate establishments."[4] He was rather of the opinion that the
restriction was not within the true scope of the constitution. Like
Jefferson, therefore, during the later years of his life, Madison saw
many difficulties in the way of abolishing slavery. He gave a
sympathetic ear to the experiences of the Moravians, Hermonites,
and the Shakers, but although he had to concede that slavery
impaired the influence of the political example of the United States
and was a blot on our republican character, he never became what
we could call an abolitionist for the reason that he found it difficult to
remove the Negroes from the country when freed. That being the
case, he noted with some interest the increase of the slave
population, the increase in voluntary emancipation, and the progress
of the Colonization Society, to the presidency of which he was
elected.[4]

To Robert Pleasants
Philadelphia, October 30, 1791

Sir,—The delay in acknowledging your letter of the 6th June last proceeded from the
cause you conjectured. I did not receive it till a few days ago, when it was put into my
hands by Mr. James Pemberton, along with your subsequent letter of the 8th August.

The petition relating to the Militia bill contains nothing that makes it improper for me to
present it. I shall, therefore, readily comply with your desire on that subject. I am not
satisfied that I am equally at liberty with respect to the other petition. Animadversions
such as it contains, and which the authorized object of the petitioners did not require,
on the slavery existing in our country, are supposed by the holders of that species of
property to lessen the value by weakening the tenure of it. Those from whom I derive
my public station are known by me to be greatly interested in that species of property,
and to view the matter in that light. It would seem that I might be chargeable at least
with want of candour, if not of fidelity, were I to make use of a situation in which their
confidence has placed me to become a volunteer in giving a public wound, as they
would deem it, to an interest on which they set so great a value. I am the less inclined
to disregard this scruple as I am not sensible that the event of the petition would in the
least depend on the circumstance of its being laid before the House by this or that
person.

Such an application as that to our own Assembly, on which you ask my opinion, is a
subject, in various respects, of great delicacy and importance. The consequences of
every sort ought to be well weighed by those who would hazard it. From the view under

which they present themselves to me, I cannot but consider the application as likely to
do harm rather than good. It may be worth your own consideration whether it might not
produce successful attempts to withdraw the privilege now allowed to individuals, of
giving freedom to slaves. It would at least be likely to clog it with a condition that the
person freed should be removed from the country; there being arguments of great force
for such a regulation, and some would concur in it, who, in general, disapprove of the
institution of slavery.

I thank you, sir, for the friendly sentiments you have expressed towards me, and am,
with respect, your obt, humble servt.[5]

To Robert Walsh[6]
Montpellier, Mar. 2d, 1819.

Dr Sir,—I received some days ago your letter of Feby 15, in which you intimate your
intention to vindicate our Country against misrepresentations propagated abroad, and
your desire of information on the subject of negro slavery, of moral character, of
religion, and of education in Virginia, as affected by the Revolution, and our public
Institutions.

The general condition of slaves must be influenced by various causes. Among these
are: 1. The ordinary price of food, on which the quality and quantity allowed them will
more or less depend. This cause has operated much more unfavorably against them in
some quarters than in Virginia. 2. The kinds of labour to be performed, of which the
sugar and rice plantations afford elsewhere, and not here, unfavorable examples. 3.
The national spirit of their masters, which has been graduated by philosophic writers
among the slaveholding Colonies of Europe. 4. The circumstance of conformity or
difference in the physical characters of the two classes; such a difference cannot but
have a material influence, and is common to all the slaveholding countries within the
American hemisphere. Even in those where there are other than black slaves, as
Indians and mixed breeds, there is a difference of colour not without its influence. 5.
The proportion which the slaves bear to the free part of the community, and especially
the greater or smaller numbers in which they belong to individuals.

This last is, perhaps, the most powerful of all the causes deteriorating the condition of
the slave, and furnishes the best scale for determining the degree of its hardship.

In reference to the actual condition of slaves in Virginia, it may be confidently stated as
better, beyond comparison, than it was before the Revolution. The improvement strikes
every one who witnessed their former condition, and attends to their present. They are
better fed, better clad, better lodged, and better treated in every respect; insomuch, that
what was formerly deemed a moderate treatment, would now be a rigid one, and what
formerly a rigid one, would now be denounced by the public feelings. With respect to
the great article of food particularly, it is a common remark among those who have
visited Europe, that it includes a much greater proportion of the animal ingredient than
is attainable by the free labourers even in that quarter of the Globe. As the two great
causes of the melioration in the lot of the slaves since the establishment of our
Independence, I should set down: 1. The sensibility to human rights, and sympathy with
human sufferings, excited and cherished by the discussions preceding, and the spirit of
the Institutions growing out of that event. 2. The decreasing proportion which the slaves

bear to the individual holders of them; a consequence of the abolition of entails and the
rule of primogeniture; and of the equalizing tendency of parental affection unfettered
from all prejudices, as well as from the restrictions of law.

With respect to the moral features of Virginia, it must be observed, that pictures which
have been given of them are, to say the least, outrageous caricatures, even when
taken from the state of society previous to the Revolution; and that so far as there was
any ground or colour for them then, the same cannot be found for them now.

Omitting more minute or less obvious causes, tainting the habits and manners of the
people under the Colonial Government, the following offer themselves: 1. The negro
slavery chargeable in so great a degree on the very quarter which has furnished most
of the libellers. It is well known that during the Colonial dependence of Virginia,
repeated attempts were made to stop the importation of slaves, each of which attempts
was successively defeated by the foreign negative on the laws, and that one of the first
offsprings of independent republican legislation was an act of perpetual prohibition.

. . . . . . . . .

With the exception of slavery, these demoralizing causes have ceased or are wearing
out; and even that, as already noticed, has lost no small share of its former character.
On the whole, the moral aspect of the State may, at present, be fairly said to bear no
unfavorable comparison with the average standard of the other States. It certainly gives
the lie to the foreign calumniators whom you propose to arraign.[7]

To Robert J. Evans (Author of the Pieces Published Under the
Name of Benjamin Rush).
Montpellier, June 15, 1819.

Sir,—I have received your letter of the 3d instant, requesting such hints as may have
occurred to me on the subject of an eventual extinguishment of slavery in the United
States.

Not doubting the purity of your views, and relying on the discretion by which they will be
regulated, I cannot refuse such a compliance as will, at least, manifest my respect for
the object of your undertaking.

A general emancipation of slaves ought to be—1. Gradual. 2. Equitable, and
satisfactory to the individual immediately concerned. 3. Consistent with the existing and
durable prejudices of the nation.

That it ought, like remedies for other deep-rooted and widespread evils, to be gradual,
is so obvious, that there seems to be no difference of opinion on that point.

To be equitable and satisfactory, the consent of both the master and the slave should
be obtained. That of the master will require a provision in the plan for compensating a
loss of what he held as property, guaranteed by the laws, and recognised by the
Constitution. That of the slave, requires that his condition in a state of freedom be
preferable, in his own estimation, to his actual one in a state of bondage.

To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the United States,
the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by, or
allotted to, a white population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two
people, are, with most of the whites, insuperable; and are admitted by all of them to be
very powerful. If the blacks, strongly marked as they are by physical and lasting
peculiarities, be retained amid the whites, under the degrading privation of equal rights,
political or social, they must be always dissatisfied with their condition, as a change
only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederating against
the ruling and privileged class; and always uncontrolled by some of the most cogent
motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks even where
their legal condition is least affected by their color, seems to put these truths beyond
question. It is material, also, that the removal of the blacks to be a distance precluding
the jealousies and hostilities to be apprehended from a neighboring people, stimulated
by the contempt known to be entertained for their peculiar features; to say nothing of
their vindictive recollections, or the predatory propensities which their state of society
might foster. Nor is it fair, in estimating the danger of collisions with the whites, to
charge it wholly on the side of the black. There would be reciprocal antipathies doubling
the danger.

The colonizing plan on foot has, as far as it extends, a due regard to these requisites;
with the additional object of bestowing new blessings, civil and religious, on the quarter
of the Globe most in need of them. The Society proposes to transport to the African
coast all free and freed blacks who may be willing to remove thither; to provide by fair
means, and, it is understood, with a prospect of success, a suitable territory for their
reception; and to initiate them into such an establishment as may gradually and
indefinitely expand itself.

The experiment, under this view of it, merits encouragement from all who regard
slavery as an evil, who wish to see it diminished and abolished by peaceable and just
means, and who have themselves no better mode to propose. Those who have most
doubted the success of the experiment must, at least, have wished to find themselves
in an error.

But the views of the Society are limited to the case of blacks, already free, or who may
be gratuitously emancipated. To provide a commensurate remedy for the evil, the plan
must be extended to the great mass of blacks, and must embrace a fund sufficient to
induce the master, as well as the slave, to concur in it. Without the concurrence of the
master, the benefit will be very limited as it relates to the negroes, and essentially
defective as it relates to the United States; and the concurrence of masters must, for
the most part, be obtained by purchase.

Can it be hoped that voluntary contributions, however adequate to an auspicious
commencement, will supply the sums necessary to such an enlargement of the
remedy? May not another question be asked? Would it be reasonable to throw so great
a burden on the individuals distinguished by their philanthropy and patriotism?

The object to be obtained, as an object of humanity, appeals alike to all; as a national
object, it claims the interposition of the nation. It is the nation which is to reap the
benefit. The nation, therefore, ought to bear the burden.

Must, then, the enormous sums required to pay for, to transport, and to establish in a
foreign land, all the slaves in the United States, as their masters may be willing to part
with them, be taxed on the good people of the United States, or be obtained by loans,
swelling the public debt to a size pregnant with evils next in degree to those of slavery
itself?

Happily, it is not necessary to answer this question by remarking, that if slavery, as a
national evil, is to be abolished, and it be just that it be done at the national expense,
the amount of the expense is not a paramount consideration. It is the peculiar fortune,
or, rather, a providential blessing of the United States, to possess a resource
commensurate to this great object, without taxes on the people, or even an increase of
the public debt.

I allude to the vacant territory, the extent of which is so vast, and the vendible value of
which is so well ascertained.

Supposing the number of slaves to be 1,500,000, and their price to average 400
dollars, the cost of the whole would be 600 millions of dollars. These estimates are
probably beyond the fact; and from the number of slaves should be deducted; 1. Those
whom their masters would not part with. 2. Those who may be gratuitously set free by
their masters. 3. Those acquiring freedom under emancipating regulations of the
States. 4. Those preferring slavery where they are to freedom in an African settlement.
On the other hand, it is to be noted that the expense of removal and settlement is not
included in the estimated sum; and that an increase of the slaves will be going on
during the period required for the execution of the plan.

On the whole, the aggregate sum needed may be stated at about six hundred millions
of dollars.

This will require 200 millions of acres, at three dollars per acre; or 300 millions at two
dollars per acre; a quantity which, though great in itself, is perhaps not a third part of
the disposable territory belonging to the United States. And to what object so good, so
great, and so glorious, could that peculiar fund of wealth be appropriated? Whilst the
sale of territory would, on one hand, be planting one desert with a free and civilized
people, it would, on the other, be giving freedom to another people, and filling with them
another desert. And if in any instance wrong has been done by our forefathers to
people of one colour, by dispossessing them of their soil, what better atonement is now
in our power than that of making what is rightfully acquired a source of justice and of
blessings to a people of another colour?

As the revolution to be produced in the condition of the negroes must be gradual, it will
suffice if the sale of territory keep pace with its progress. For a time, at least, the
proceeds would be in advance. In this case, it might be best, after deducting the
expense incident to the surveys and sales, to place the surplus in a situation where its
increase might correspond with the natural increase of the unpurchased slaves. Should
the proceeds at any time fall short of the calls for their application, anticipations might
be made by temporary loans, to be discharged as the land should find a market.

But it is probable that for a considerable period the sales would exceed the calls.
Masters would not be willing to strip their plantations and farms of their labourers so
rapidly. The slaves themselves connected, as they generally are, by tender ties with

others under other masters, would be kept from the list of emigrants by the want of the
multiplied consents to be obtained. It is probable, indeed, that for a long time a certain
portion of the proceeds might safely continue applicable to the discharge of the debts
or to other purposes of the nation, or it might be most convenient, in the outset, to
appropriate a certain proportion only of the income from sales to the object in view,
leaving the residue otherwise applicable.

Should any plan similar to that I have sketched be deemed eligible in itself, no
particular difficulty is foreseen from that portion of the nation, which, with a common
interest in the vacant territory, has no interest in slave property. They are too just to
wish that a partial sacrifice should be made for the general good, and too well aware
that whatever may be the intrinsic character of that description of property, it is one
known to the Constitution, and, as such could not be constitutionally taken away
without just compensation. That part of the nation has, indeed, shewn a meritorious
alacrity in promoting, by pecuniary contributions, the limited scheme for colonizing the
blacks, and freeing the nation from the unfortunate stain on it, which justifies the belief
that any enlargement of the scheme, if founded on just principles, would find among
them its earliest and warmest patrons. It ought to have great weight that the vacant
lands in question have, for the most part, been derived from grants of the States
holding the slaves to be redeemed and removed by the sale of them.

It is evident, however, that in effectuating a general emancipation of slaves in the mode
which has been hinted, difficulties of other sorts would be encountered. The provision
for ascertaining the joint consent of the masters and slaves; for guarding against
unreasonable valuations of the latter; and for the discrimination of those not proper to
be conveyed to a foreign residence, or who ought to remain a charge on masters in
whose service they had been disabled or worn out, and for the annual transportation of
such numbers, would require the mature deliberations of the national councils. The
measure implies also, the practicability of procuring in Africa an enlargement of the
district or districts for receiving the exiles sufficient for so great an augmentation of their
numbers.

Perhaps the Legislative provision best adapted to the case would be an incorporation
of the Colonizing Society, or the establishment of a similar one, with proper powers,
under the appointment and superintendence of the National Executive.

In estimating the difficulties, however, incident to any plan of general emancipation,
they ought to be brought into comparison with those inseparable from other plans, and
be yielded to or not accordingly to the result of the comparison.

One difficulty presents itself which will probably attend every plan which is to go into
effect under the Legislative provisions of the National Government. But whatever may
be the effect of existing powers of Congress, the Constitution has pointed out the way
in which it can be supplied. And it can hardly be doubted that the requisite powers
might readily be procured for attaining the great object in question, in any mode
whatever approved by the nation.

If these thoughts can be of any aid in your search of a remedy for the great evil under
which the nation labors, you are very welcome to them.[8]

To Tench Coxe.
Montpelier, March 20, 1820.

I am glad to find you still sparing moments for subjects interesting to the public welfare.
The remarks on the thorny one to which you refer in the "National Recorder," seem to
present the best arrangement for the unfortunate part of our population whose case
has enlisted the anxiety of so many benevolent minds, next to that which provides a
foreign outlet and location for them. I have long thought that our vacant territory was
the resource which, in some mode or other, was most applicable and adequate as a
gradual cure for the portentous evil; without, however, being unaware that even that
would encounter serious difficulties of different sorts.[9]

To General Lafayette.
Montpelier, Nov. 25, 1820.

. . . . . . . . .

The subject which ruffles the surface of public affairs most, at present, is furnished by
the transmission of the "Territory" of Missouri from a state of nonage to a maturity for
self-Government, and for a membership in the Union. Among the questions involved in
it, the one most immediately interesting to humanity is the question whether a toleration
or prohibition of slavery Westward of the Mississippi would most extend its evils. The
human part of the argument against the prohibition turns on the position, that whilst the
importation of slaves from abroad is precluded, a diffusion of those in the Country tends
at once to meliorate their actual condition, and to facilitate their eventual emancipation.
Unfortunately, the subject, which was settled at the last session of Congress by a
mutual concession of the parties, is reproduced on the arena by a clause in the
Constitution of Missouri, distinguishing between free persons of colour and white
persons, and providing that the Legislature of the new State shall exclude from it the
former. What will be the issue of the revived discussion is yet to be seen. The case
opens the wider field, as the Constitution and laws of the different States are much at
variance in the civic character giving to free persons of colour; those of most of the
States, not excepting such as have abolished slavery, imposing various
disqualifications, which degrade them from the rank and rights of white persons. All
these perplexities develope more and more the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin
of the African trade.[10]

To F. Corbin
November 26, 1820.

. . . . . . . . .

I do not mean to discuss the question how far slavery and farming are incompatible.
Our opinions agree as to the evil, moral, political, and economical, of the former. I still
think, notwithstanding, that under all the disadvantages of slave cultivation, much
improvement in it is practicable. Proofs are annually taking place within my own sphere
of observation; particularly where slaves are held in small numbers, by good masters
and managers. As to the very wealthy proprietors, much less is to be said. But after all,
(protesting against any inference of a disposition to undertake the evil of slavery,) is it

certain that in giving to your wealth a new investment, you would be altogether freed
from the cares and vexations incident to the shape it now has? If converted into paper,
you already feel some of the contingencies belonging to it; if into commercial stock,
look at the wrecks every where giving warning of the danger. If into large landed
property, where there are no slaves, will you cultivate it yourself? Then beware of the
difficulty of procuring faithful or complying labourers. Will you dispose of it in leases?
Ask those who have made the experiment what sort of tenants are to be found where
an ownership of the soil is so attainable. It has been said that America is a country for
the poor, not for the rich. There would be more correctness in saying it is the country for
both, where the latter have a relish for free government; but, proportionally, more for
the former than for the latter.[11]

To General la Fayette.
1821.

. . . . . . . . .

The negro slavery is, as you justly complain, a sad blot on our free country, though a
very ungracious subject of reproaches from the quarter which has been most lavish of
them. No satisfactory plan has yet been devised for taking out the stain. If an asylum
could be found in Africa, that would be the appropriate destination for the unhappy race
among us. Some are sanguine that the efforts of an existing Colonization Society will
accomplish such a provision; but a very partial success seems the most that can be
expected. Some other region must, therefore, be found for them as they become free
and willing to emigrate. The repugnance of the whites to their continuance among them
is founded on prejudices, themselves founded on physical distinctions, which are not
likely soon, if ever, to be eradicated. Even in States, Massachusetts for example, which
displayed most sympathy with the people of colour on the Missouri question,
prohibitions are taking place against their becoming residents. They are every where
regarded as a nuisance, and must really be such as long as they are under the
degradation which public sentiment inflicts on them. They are at the same time rapidly
increasing from manumissions and from offspring, and of course lessening the general
disproportion between the slaves and the whites. This tendency is favorable to the
cause of a universal emancipation."[12]

To Dr. Morse
March 28, 1823

Queries.

1. Do the planters generally live on their own estates?

2. Does a planter with ten or fifteen slaves employ an overlooker, or does he overlook
his slaves himself?

3. Obtain estimates of the culture of Sugar and Cotton, to show what difference it
makes where the planter resides on his estate, or where he employs attorneys,
overlookers, &c.

4. Is it a common or general practice to mortgage slave estates?

5. Are sales of slave estates very frequent under execution for debt and what
proportion of the whole may be thus sold annually?

6. Does the Planter possess the power of selling the different branches of a family
separate?

7. When the prices of produce, Cotton Sugar, &c., are high, do the Planters purchase,
instead of raising, their corn and other provisions?

8. When the prices of produce are low, do they then raise their own corn and other
provisions?

9. Do the negroes fare better when the Corn, &c., is raised upon their master's estate
or when he buys it?

10. Do the tobacco planters in America ever buy their own Corn or other food, or do
they always raise it?

11. If they always, or mostly, raise it, can any other reason be given for the differences
of the system pursued by them and that pursued by the Sugar and Cotton planters than
that cultivation of tobacco is less profitable than that of Cotton or Sugar?

12. Do any of the Planters manufacture the packages for their product, or the clothing
for their negroes and if they do, are their negroes better clothed than when clothing is
purchased?

13. Where, and by whom, is the Cotton bagging of the Brazils made? is it principally
made by free men or slaves?

14. Is it the general system to employ the negroes in task work, or by the day?

15. How many hours are they generally at work in the former case? how many in the
latter? Which system is generally preferred by the master? which by the slaves?

16. Is it common to allow them a certain portion of time instead of their allowance of
provisions? In this case, how much is allowed? Where the slaves have the option,
which do they generally choose? On which system do the slaves look the best, and
acquire the most comforts?

17. Are there many small plantations where the owners possess only a few slaves?
What proportion of the whole may be supposed to be held in this way?

18. In such cases, are the slaves treated or almost considered a part of the family?

19. Do the slaves fare best when their situations and that of the master are brought
nearest together?

20. In what state are the slaves as to religion or religious instruction?

21. Is it common for the slaves to be regularly married?

22. If a man forms an attachment to a woman on a different or distant plantation, is it
the general practice for some accommodation to take place between the owners of the
man and woman, so that they may live together?

23. In the United States of America, the slaves are found to increase at about the rate
of 3 P cent. P annum. Does the same take place in other places? Give a census, if
such is taken. Show what cause contributes to this increase, or what prevents it where
it does not take place.

24. Obtain a variety of estimates from the Planters of the cost of bringing up a child,
and at what age it becomes a clear gain to its owner.

25. Obtain information respecting the comparative cheapness of cultivation by slaves or
by free men.

26. Is it common for the free blacks to labour in the field?

27. Where the labourers consist of free blacks and of white men, what are the relative
prices of their labour when employed about the same work?

28. What is the proportion of free blacks and slaves?

29. Is it considered that the increase in the proportion of free blacks to slaves increases
or diminishes the danger of insurrection?

30. Are the free blacks employed in the defence of the Country, and do they and the
Creoles preclude the necessity of European troops?

31. Do the free blacks appear to consider themselves as more closely connected with
the slaves or with the white population? and in cases of insurrection, with which have
they generally taken part?

32. What is their general character with respect to industry and order, as compared with
that of the slaves?

33. Are there any instances of emancipation in particular estates, and what is the
result?

34. Is there any general plan of emancipation in progress, and what?

35. What was the mode and progress of emancipation in those States in America
where slavery has ceased to exist?

Hon. James Madison, Esq.
New Haven, Mar. 14, 1823.

Sir.—The foregoing was transmitted to me from a respectable correspondent in
Liverpool, deeply engaged in the abolition of the slave trade, and the amelioration of
the condition of slaves. If, sir, your leisure will allow you, and it is agreeable to you to
furnish brief answers to these questions, you will, I conceive, essentially serve the

cause of humanity, and gratify and oblige the Society above named, and, Sir, with high
consideration and esteem, your most obt servt,

Jed'h Morse.

Answers

1. Yes.

2. Employs an overseer for that number of slaves, with few exceptions.

3. ——

4. Not uncommonly the land; sometimes the slaves; very rarely both together.

5. The common law, as in England, governs the relation between land and debts;
slaves are often sold under execution for debt; the proportion to the whole cannot be
great within a year, and varies, of course, with the amount of debt and the urgency of
creditors.

6. Yes.

7-10. Instances are rare where the tobacco planters do not raise their own provisions.

11. The proper comparison, not between the culture of tobacco and that of sugar and
cotton, but between each of these cultures and that of provisions. The tobacco planter
finds it cheaper to make them a part of his crop than to buy them. The cotton and sugar
planters to buy them, where this is the case, than to raise them. The term, cheaper,
embraces the comparative facility and certainty of procuring the supplies.

12. Generally best clothed when from the household manufactures, which are
increasing.

14, 15. Slaves seldom employed in regular task work. They prefer it only when
rewarded with the surplus time gained by their industry.

16. Not the practice to substitute an allowance of time for the allowance of provisions.

17. Very many, and increasing with the progressive subdivisions of property; the
proportion cannot be stated.

18, 19. The fewer the slaves, and the fewer the holders of slaves, the greater the
indulgence and familiarity. In districts composing (comprising?) large masses of slaves
there is no difference in their condition, whether held in small or large numbers, beyond
the difference in the dispositions of the owners, and the greater strictness of attention
where the number is greater.

20. There is no general system of religious instruction. There are few spots where
religious worship is not within reach, and to which they do not resort. Many are regular
members of Congregations, chiefly Baptist; and some Preachers also, though rarely
able to read.

21. Not common; but the instances are increasing.

22. The accommodation not unfrequent where the plantations are very distant. The
slaves prefer wives on a different plantation, as affording occasions and pretexts for
going abroad, and exempting them on holidays from a share of the little calls to which
those at home are liable.

23. The remarkable increase of slaves, as shown by the census, results from the
comparative defect of moral and prudential restraint on the sexual connexion; and from
the absence, at the same time, of that counteracting licentiousness of intercourse, of
which the worst examples are to be traced where the African trade, as in the West
Indies, kept the number of females less than of the males.

24. The annual expense of food and raiment in rearing a child may be stated at about
8, 9, or 10 dollars; and the age at which it begins to be gainful to its owner about 9 or
10 years.

25. The practice here does not furnish data for a comparison of cheapness between
these two modes of cultivation.

26. They are sometimes hired for field labour in time of harvest, and on other particular
occasions.

27. The examples are too few to have established any such relative prices.

28. See the census.

29. Rather increases.

30. —————

31. More closely with the slaves, and more likely to side with them in a case of
insurrection.

32. Generally idle and depraved; appearing to retain the bad qualities of the slaves,
with whom they continue to associate, without acquiring any of the good ones of the
whites, from whom (they) continued separated by prejudices against their colour, and
other peculiarities.

33. There are occasional instances in the present legal condition of leaving the State.

34. None.

35. —————[13]

To Miss Frances Wright
Montpellier, Sept. 1, 1825.

Dear Madam,—Your letter to Mrs. Madison, containing observations addressed to my
attention also, came duly to hand, as you will learn from her, with a printed copy of your
plan for the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States.

The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally
acknowledged, that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory
remedy for it. Unfortunately the task, not easy under other circumstances, is vastly
augmented by the physical peculiarities[14] of those held in bondage, which preclude
their incorporation with the white population; and by the blank in the general field of
labour to be occasioned by their exile; a blank into which there would not be an influx of
white labourers, successively taking the place of the exiles, and which, without such an
influx, would have an effect distressing in prospect to the proprietors of the soil.

The remedy for the evil which you have planned is certainly recommended to favorable
attention by the two characteristics: 1. That it requires the voluntary concurrence of the
holders of the slaves, with or without pecuniary compensation. 2. That it contemplates
the removal of those emancipated, either to a foreign or distant region. And it will still
further obviate objections, if the experimental establishments should avoid the
neighborhood of settlements where there are slaves.

Supposing these conditions to be duly provided for, particularly the removal of the
emancipated blacks, the remaining questions relate to the attitude and adequacy of the
process by which the slaves are at the same time to earn the funds, entire or
supplemental, required for their emancipation and removal; and to be sufficiently
educated for a life of freedom and of social order.

With respect to a proper course of education, no serious difficulties present
themselves. And as they are to continue in a state of bondage during the preparatory
period, and to be within the jurisdiction of States recognizing ample authority over
them, a competent discipline cannot be impracticable. The degree in which this
discipline will enforce the needed labour, and in which a voluntary industry will supply
the defect of compulsory labour, are vital points, on which it may not be safe to be very
positive without some light from actual experiment.

Considering the probable composition of the labourers, and the known fact that, where
the labour is compulsory the greater the number of labourers brought together (unless,
indeed, where cooperation of many hands is rendered essential by a particular kind of
work, or of machinery) the less are the proportional profits, it may be doubted whether
the surplus from that source merely, beyond the support of the establishment would
sufficiently accumulate in five, or even more years, for the objects in view. And candor
obliges me to say that I am not satisfied either that the prospect of emancipation at a
future day will sufficiently overcome the natural and habitual repugnance to labour, or
that there is such an advantage of united over individual labour as is taken for granted.

In cases where portions of time have been allowed to slaves, as among the Spaniards,
with a view to their working out their freedom, it is believed that but few have availed
themselves of the opportunity by a voluntary industry; and such a result could be less
relied on in a case where each individual would feel that the fruit of his exertions would
be shared by others, whether equally or unequally making them, and that the exertions
of others would equally avail him, notwithstanding a deficiency in his own. Skilful
arrangements might palliate this tendency, but it would be difficult to counteract it
effectually.[15]

The examples of the Moravians, the Harmonites, and the Shakers, in which the united
labours of many for a common object have been successful have, no doubt, an
imposing character. But it must be recollected that in all these establishments there is a
religious impulse in the members of a religious authority in the head, for which there will
be no substitutes of equivalent efficacy in the emancipating establishment. The code of
rules by which Mr. Rapp manages his conscientious and devoted flock, and enriches a
common treasury, must be little applicable to the dissimilar assemblage in question. His
experience may afford valuable aid in its general organization, and in the distribution
and details of the work to be performed. But an efficient administration must, as is
judiciously proposed, be in hands practically acquainted with the propensities and
habits of the members of the new community.

With reference to this dissimilarity, and to the doubt as to the advantages of associated
labour, it may deserve consideration whether the experiment would not be better
commenced on a scale smaller than that assumed in the prospectus. A less expensive
outfit would suffice; labourers in the proper proportions of sex and age would be more
attainable; the necessary discipline and the direction of their labours could be more
simple and manageable; and but little time would be lost; or, perhaps, time gained; as
success, for which the chance would, according to my calculation, be increased, would
give an encouraging aspect, to the plan, and probably suggest improvements better
qualifying it for the larger scale proposed.

Such, Madam, are the general ideas suggested by your interesting communication. If
they do not coincide with yours, and imply less of confidence than may be due to the
plan you have formed, I hope you will not question either my admiration of the
generous philanthropy which dictated it, or my sense of the special regard it evinces for
the honor and welfare of our expanding, and, I trust, rising Republic.

As it is not certain what construction would be put on the view I have taken of the
subject, I leave it with your discretion to withhold it altogether, or to disclose it within the
limits you allude to; intimating only that it will be most agreeable to me, on all
occasions, not to be brought before the public where there is no obvious call for it.

Writing to General Lafayette in 1826, Madison commented thus on
the proposal of Miss Frances Wright for the uplift of Negroes.
You possess, notwithstanding your distance, better information concerning Miss Wright,
and her experiment, than we do here. We learn only that she has chosen for it a remote
spot in the western part of Tennessee, and has commenced her enterprise; but with
what prospects we know not. Her plan contemplated a provision for the expatriation of
her Elèves, but without specifying it; from which I infer the difficulty felt in devising a
satisfactory one. Could this part of the plan be ensured, the other essential part would
come about of itself. Manumissions now more than keep pace with the outlets
provided, and the increase of them is checked only by their remaining in the Country.
This obstacle removed, and all others would yield to the emancipating disposition. To
say nothing of partial modes, what would be more simple, with the requisite grant of
power to Congress, than to purchase all female infants at their birth, leaving them in the
service of the holder to a reasonable age, on condition of their receiving an elementary
education? The annual number of female births may be stated at twenty thousand, and
the cost at less than one hundred dollars each, at the most; a sum which would not be

felt by the nation, and be even within the compass of State resources. But no such
effort would be listened to, whilst the impression remains, and it seems to be indelible,
that the two races cannot co-exist, both being free and equal. The great sine qua non,
therefore, is some external asylum for the coloured race. In the mean time, the taunts
to which this misfortune exposes us in Europe are the more to be deplored, because it
impairs the influence of our political example; though they come with an ill grace from
the quarter most lavish of them, the quarter which obtruded the evil, and which has but
lately become a penitent, under suspicious appearances.[16]

To Joseph C. Cabell
Montpellier, January 5, 1829.

Dear Sir,—I have received yours of December 28, in which you wish me to say
something of the agitated subject of the basis of representation in the contemplated
convention for revising the State Constitution. In a case depending so much on local
views and feelings, and perhaps on the opinions of leading individuals, and in which a
mixture of compromises with abstract principles may be resorted to, your judgment,
formed on the theatre affording the best means of information, must be more capable
of aiding mine than mine yours.

What occurs to me is, that the great principle "that man cannot be justly bound by laws,
in making which they have no share," consecrated as it is by our Revolution and the Bill
of Rights, and sanctioned by examples around us, is so engraven on the public mind
here, that it ought to have a preponderating influence in all questions involved in the
mode of forming a convention, and in discharging the trust committed to it when
formed. It is said that west of the Blue Ridge the votes of non-freeholders are often
connived at, the candidates finding it unpopular to object to them.

With respect to the slaves, they cannot be admitted as persons into the representation,
and probably will not be allowed any claim as a privileged property. As the difficulty and
disquietude on that subject arise mainly from the great inequality of slaves in the
geographical division of the country, it is fortunate that the cause will abate as they
become more diffused, which is already taking place; transfers of them from the
quarters where they abound, to those where labourers are more wanted being a matter
of course.

Is there, then, to be no constitutional provision for the rights of property, when added to
the personal rights of the holders, against the will of a majority having little or no direct
interest in the rights of property? If any such provision be attainable beyond the moral
influence which property adds to political rights, it will be most secure and permanent if
made by a convention chosen by a general suffrage, and more likely to be so made
now than at a future stage of population. If made by a freehold convention in favour of
freeholders, it would be less likely to be acquiesced in permanently.[17]

To General la Fayette
Feb. 1, 1830.

. . . . . . . . .

Your anticipation with regard to the slavery among us were the natural offspring of your
just principles and laudable sympathies; but I am sorry to say that the occasion which
led to them proved to be little fitted for the slightest interposition on that subject. A
sensibility, morbid in the highest degree, was never more awakened among those who
have the largest stake in that species of interest, and the most violent against any
governmental movement in relation to it. The excitability at the moment, happened,
also, to be not a little augmented by party questions between the South and the North,
and the efforts used to make the circumstance common to the former a sympathetic
bond of co-operation. I scarcely express myself too strongly in saying that any allusion
in the Convention to the subject you have so much at heart would have been a spark to
a mass of gunpowder. It is certain, nevertheless, that time, the great "Innovator," is not
idle in its salutary preparations. The Colonization Society are becoming more and more
one of its agents. Outlets for the freed blacks are alone wanted for a rapid erasure of
the blot from our Republican character.[18]

To —— ——
June 28, 1831.

But the title in the people of the United States rests on a foundation too just and solid to
be shaken by any technical or metaphysical arguments whatever. The known and
acknowledged intentions of the parties at the time, with a prescriptive sanction of so
many years consecrated by the intrinsic principles of equity, would overrule even the
most explicit declarations and terms, as has been done without the aid of that principle
in the slaves, who remain such in spite of the declarations that all men are born equally
free.[19]

To Matthew Carey
Montpelier, July 7, 1831.

. . . . . . . . .

If the States cannot live together in harmony under the auspices of such a Government
as exists, and in the midst of blessings such as have been the fruits of it, what is the
prospect threatened by the abolition of a common Government, with all the rivalships,
collisions and animosities inseparable from such an event? The entanglements and
conflicts of commercial regulations, especially as affecting the inland and other non-
importing States, and a protection of fugitive slaves substituted for the obligatory
surrender of them, would, of themselves, quickly kindle the passions which are the
forerunners of war.[20]

To R. R. Gurley, a promoter of colonization, Madison wrote the
following December 28, 1831:
Dear Sir,—I received in due time your letter of the 21 ultimo, and with due sensibility to
the subject of it. Such, however, has been the effect of a painful rheumatism on my
general condition, as well as in disqualifying my fingers for the use of the pen, that I
could not do justice "to the principles and measures of the Colonization Society, in all
the great and various relations they sustain in our country and to Africa." If my views of

them could have the value which your partiality supposes, I may observe, in brief, that
the Society had always my good wishes, though with hopes of its success less
sanguine than were entertained by others found to have been the better judges; and
that I feel the greatest pleasure at the progress already made by the Society, and the
encouragement to encounter the remaining difficulties afforded by the earlier and
greater ones already overcome. Many circumstances at the present moment seem to
concur in brightening the prospects of the Society, and cherishing the hope that the
time will come when the dreadful calamity which has so long afflicted our country, and
filled so many with despair, will be gradually removed, and by means consistent with
justice, peace, and the general satisfaction; thus giving to our country the full
enjoyment of the blessings of liberty, and to the world the full benefit of its great
example. I have never considered the main difficulty of the great work as lying in the
deficiency of emancipations, but in an inadequacy of asylums for such a growing mass
of population, and in the great expense of removing it to its new home. The spirit of
private maunmission, as the laws may permit and the exiles may consent, is
increasing, and will increase, and there are sufficient indications that the public
authorities in slaveholding States are looking forward to interpretations, in different
forms, that must have a powerful effect.

With respect to the new abode for the emigrants, all agree that the choice made by the
Society is rendered peculiarly appropriate by considerations which need not be
repeated, and if other situations should not be found as eligible receptacles for a
portion of them, the prospect in Africa seems to be expanding in a highly encouraging
degree.

In contemplating the pecuniary resources needed for the removal of such a number to
so great a distance, my thought and hopes have long been turned to the rich fund
presented in the western lands of the nation, which will soon entirely cease to be under
a pledge for another object. The great one in question is truly of a national character,
and it is known that distinguished patriots not dwelling in slaveholding States have
viewed the object in that light, and would be willing to let the national domain be a
resource in effectuating it.

Should it be remarked that the States, although all may be interested in relieving our
country from the coloured population, are not equally so, it is but fair to recollect that
the sections most to be benefited are those whose cessions created the fund to be
disposed of.

I am aware of the constitutional obstacle which has presented itself; but if the general
will be reconciled to an application of the territorial fund to the removal of the coloured
population, a grant to Congress of the necessary authority could be carried with little
delay through the forms of the Constitution.

Sincerely wishing increasing success to the labours of the Society, I pray you to be
assured of my esteem, and to accept my friendly salutations.[21]

To Thomas R. Drew
Montpellier, Feby 23, 1833

Dear Sir,—I received, in due time, your letter of the 15th ult. with copies of the two
pamphlets; one on the "Restrictive System," the other on the "Slave Question."

The former I have not yet been able to look into, and in reading the latter with the
proper attention I have been much retarded by many interruptions, as well as by the
feebleness incident to my great age, increased as it is by the effects of an acute fever,
preceded and followed by a chronic complaint under which I am still labouring. This
explanation of the delay in acknowledging your favor will be an apology, also, for the
brevity and generality of the answer. For the freedom of it, none, I am sure, will be
required. In the views of the subject taken in the pamphlet, I have found much valuable
and interesting information, with ample proof of the numerous obstacles to a removal of
slavery from our country, and everything that could be offered in mitigation of its
continuance; but I am obliged to say, that in not a few of the data from which you
reason, and in the conclusion to which you are led, I cannot concur.

I am aware of the impracticability of an immediate or early execution of any plan that
combines deportation with emancipation, and of the inadmissibility of emancipation
without deportation. But I have yielded to the expediency of attempting a gradual
remedy, by providing for the double operation.

If emancipation was the sole object, the extinguishment of slavery would be easy,
cheap, and complete. The purchase by the public of all female children, at their birth,
leaving them in bondage till it would defray the charge of rearing them, would, within a
limited period, be a radical resort.

With the condition of deportation it has appeared to me, that the great difficulty does
not lie either in the expense of emancipation, or in the expense or the means of
deportation, but in the attainment—1, of the requisite asylums; 2, the consent of the
individuals to be removed; 3, the labour for the vacuum to be created.

With regard to the expense—1, much will be saved by voluntary emancipations,
increasing under the influence of example, and the prospect of bettering the lot of the
slaves; 2, much may be expected in gifts and legacies from the opulent, the
philanthropic, and the conscientious; 3, more still from legislative grants by the States,
of which encouraging examples and indications have already appeared; 4, nor is there
any room for despair of aid from the indirect or direct proceeds of the public lands held
in trust by Congress. With a sufficiency of pecuniary means, the facility of providing a
naval transportation of the exiles is shewn by the present amount of our tonnage and
the promptitude with which it can be enlarged; by the number of emigrants brought
from Europe to N. America within the last year, and by the greater number of slaves
which have been, within single years, brought from the coast of Africa across the
Atlantic.

In the attainment of adequate asylums, the difficulty, though it may be considerable, is
far from being discouraging. Africa is justly the favorite choice of the patrons of
colonization; and the prospect there is flattering—1, in the territory already acquired; 2,
in the extent of coast yet to be explored, and which may be equally convenient; 3, the
adjacent interior into which the littoral settlements can be expanded under the auspices
of physical affinities between the new comers and the natives, and of the moral
superiorities of the former; 4, the great inland regions now ascertained to be accessible
by navigable waters, and opening new fields for colonizing enterprises.

But Africa, though the primary, is not the sole asylum within contemplation; an auxiliary
one presents itself in the islands adjoining this continent, where the coloured population
is already dominant, and where the wheel of revolution may from time to time produce
the like result.

Nor ought another contingent receptable for emancipated slaves to be altogether
overlooked. It exists within the territory under the control of the United States, and is
not too distant to be out of reach, whilst sufficiently distant to avoid, for an indefinite
period, the collisions to be apprehended from the vicinity of people distinguished from
each other by physical as well as other characteristics.

The consent of the individuals is another pre-requisite in the plan of removal. At present
there is a known repugnance in those already in a state of freedom to leave their native
homes, and among the slaves there is an almost universal preference of their present
condition to freedom in a distant and unknown land. But in both classes, particularly
that of the slaves, the prejudices arise from a distrust of the favorable accounts coming
to them through white channels. By degrees truth will find its way to them from sources
in which they will confide, and their aversion to removal may be overcome as fast as
the means of effectuating it shall accrue.

The difficulty of replacing the labour withdrawn by a removal of the slaves, seems to be
urged as of itself an insuperable objection to the attempt. The answer to it is—1, that
notwithstanding the emigrations of the whites, there will be an annual and by degrees
an increasing surplus of the remaining mass; 2, that there will be an attraction of whites
from without, increasing with the demand, and, as the population elsewhere will be
yielding a surplus to be attracted; 3, that as the culture of tobacco declines with the
contraction of the space within which it is profitable and still more from the successful
competition in the West, and as the farming system takes the place of planting, a
portion of labour can be spared without impairing the requisite stock; 4, that although
the process must be slow, be attended with much inconvenience, and be not even
certain in its result, is it not preferable to a torpid acquiescence in a perpetuation of
slavery, or an extinguishment of it by convulsions more disastrous in their character
and consequences than slavery itself?

In my estimate of the experiment instituted by the Colonization Society, I may indulge
too much my wishes and hopes, to be safe from errors. But a partial success will have
its virtue, and an entire failure will leave behind a consciousness of the laudable
intentions with which relief from the greatest of our calamities was attempted in the only
mode presenting a chance of effecting it.

I hope I shall be pardoned for remarking, that in accounting for the depressed condition
of Virginia, you seem to allow too little to the existence of slavery, ascribe too much to
the tariff laws, and not to have sufficiently taken into view the effect of the rapid
settlement of the Western and Southwestern country.

Previous to the Revolution, when, of these causes, slavery alone was in operation, the
face of Virginia was, in every feature of improvement and prosperity, a contrast to the
Colonies where slavery did not exist, or in a degree only, not worthy of notice. Again,
during the period of the tariff laws prior to the latter state of them, the pressure was
little, if at all, regarded as a source of the general suffering. And whatever may be the
degree in which the extravagant augmentation of the Tariff may have contributed to the

depression, the extent of this cannot be explained by the extent of the cause. The great
and adequate cause of the evil is the cause last mentioned, if that be indeed an evil
which improves the condition of our migrating citizens, and adds more to the growth
and prosperity of the whole than it subtracts from a part of the community.

Nothing is more certain than that the actual and prospective depression of Virginia is to
be referred to the fall in the value of her landed property, and in that of the staple
products of the land. And it is not less certain that the fall in both cases is the inevitable
effect of the redundancy in the market of land and of its products. The vast amount of
fertile land offered at 125 cents per acre in the West and S. West could not fail to have
the effect already experienced, of reducing the land here to half its value; and when the
labour that will here produce one hogshead of tobacco and ten barrels of flour will there
produce two hhd and twenty barrels, now so cheaply transportable to the destined
outlets, a like effect on these articles must necessarily ensue. Already more tobacco is
sent to New Orleans than is exported from Virginia to foreign markets; whilst the article
of flour, exceeding for the most part the demand for it, is in a course of rapid increase
from new sources as boundless as they are productive. The great staples of Virginia
have but a limited market, which is easily glutted. They have in fact sunk more in price,
and have a more threatening prospect, than the more southern staples of cotton and
rice. The case is believed to be the same with her landed property. That it is so with her
slaves is proved by the purchases made here for the market there.

The reflections suggested by this aspect of things will be more appropriate in your
hands than in mine. They are also beyond the tether of my subject, which I fear I have
already overstrained. I hasten, therefore, to conclude, with a tender of the high respect
and cordial regards which I pray you to accept.[22]

To Henry Clay
June, 1833.

It is painful to observe the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by imputations against
the North of unconstitutional designs on the subject of the slaves. You are right, I have
no doubt, in believing that no such intermeddling disposition exists in the body of our
Northern brethren. Their good faith is sufficiently guarantied by the interest they have
as merchants, as ship-owners, and as manufacturers, in preserving a union with the
slaveholding States. On the other hand, what madness in the South to look for greater
safety in disunion. It would be worse than jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire; it
would be jumping into the fire for fear of the frying-pan. The danger from the alarm is,
that the pride and resentment exerted by them may be an overmatch for the dictates of
prudence, and favor the project of a Southern Convention, insidiously revived, as
promising, by its councils, the best securities against grievances of every sort from the
North.[23]

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 138.

[2] Ibid., 170.

[3] Ibid., 239.

[4] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 168.

[5] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, I, 542-543.

[6] Ibid., III, 121.

[7] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 122-124.

[8] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 133-138.

[9] Ibid., III, 170.

[10] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 190.

[11] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 193-194.

[12] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 239, 240.

[13] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 310-315.

[14] These peculiarities, it would seem, are not of equal force in the South
American States, owing, in part, perhaps, to a former degradation,
produced by colonial vassalage; but principally to the lesser contrast of
colours. The difference is not striking between that of many of the
Spanish and Portuguese Creoles and that of many of the mixed breed.—
J. M.

[15] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 495-498.

[16] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 541-542.

[17] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, III, 2-3.

[18] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 60.

[19] Ibid., IV, 188.

[20] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 192.

[21] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 213-214.

[22] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 274-279.

[23] Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 301.

ADVICE GIVEN NEGROES A CENTURY AGO

The following addresses to the free people of color, taken from the
Minutes of the American Convention of Abolition Societies active in
this country during the first fifty years of the republic of the United
States, show the method employed by these early friends of the
Negroes to effect their social uplift while this organization was
working for the abolition of the slave trade and the destruction of
slavery. The advice to the Negroes as to how they should conduct
themselves is very interesting. After 1820 the American Convention
of Abolition Societies paid less attention to such advice to the people
of color and concerned itself primarily with appeals to others in their
behalf. The free Negro made so much moral progress during the
period that they ceased to be a cause of anxiety.
To The
Free Africans and other free People of color
in the
UNITED STATES.

The Convention of Deputies from the Abolition Societies in the United States,
assembled at Philadelphia, have undertaken to address you upon subjects highly
interesting to your prosperity.

They wish to see you act worthily of the rank you have acquired as freemen, and
thereby to do credit to yourselves, and to justify the friends and advocates of your color
in the eyes of the world.

As the result of our united reflections, we have concluded to call your attention to the
following articles of Advice. We trust, they are dictated by the purest regard for your
welfare, for we view you as Friends and Brethren.

In the first place. We earnestly recommend to you, a regular attention to the important
duty of public worship; by which means you will evince gratitude to your CREATOR,
and, at the same time, promote knowledge, union, friendship, and proper conduct
amongst yourselves.

Secondly,

Secondly, We advise such of you, as have not been taught reading, writing, and the
first principles of arithmetic, to acquire them as early as possible. Carefully attend to the
instruction of your children in the same simple and useful branches of education.
Cause them, likewise, early and frequently to read the holy Scriptures. They contain,
among other great discoveries, the precious record of the original equality of mankind,
and of the obligations of universal justice and benevolence, which are derived from the
relation of the human race to each other in a COMMON FATHER.

Thirdly, Teach your children useful trades, or to labor with their hands in cultivating the
earth. These employments are favorable to health and virtue. In the choice of masters,

who are to instruct them in the above branches of business, prefer those who will work
with them; by this means they will acquire habits of industry, and be better preserved
from vice, than if they worked alone, or under the eye of persons less interested in their
welfare. In forming contracts, for yourselves or children, with masters, it may be useful
to consult such persons as are capable of giving you the best advice, who are known to
be your friends, in order to prevent advantages being taken of your ignorance of the
laws and customs of our country.

Fourthly, Be diligent in your respective callings, and faithful in all the relations you bear
in society, whether as husbands, wives, fathers, children or hired servants. Be just in all
your dealings. Be simple in your dress and furniture, and frugal in your family
expenses. Thus you will act like Christians as well as freemen, and, by these means,
you will provide for the distress and wants of sickness and old age.

Fifthly, Refrain from the use of spirituous liquors. The experience of many thousands of
the citizens of the United States has proved, that these liquors are not necessary to
lessen the fatigue of labor, nor to obviate the extremes of heat or cold; much less are
they necessary to add to the innocent pleasures of society.

Sixthly, Avoid frolicking, and amusements which lead to expense and idleness; they
beget habits of dissipation and vice, and thus expose you to deserved reproach
amongst your white neighbors.

Seventhly, We wish to impress upon your minds the normal and religious necessity of
having your marriages legally performed; also to have exact registers preserved of all
the births and deaths which occur in your respective families.

Eighthly, Endeavour to lay up as much as possible of your earnings for the benefit of
your children, in case you should die before they are able to maintain themselves—
your money will be safest and most beneficial when laid out in lots, houses or small
farms.

Ninthly, We recommend to you, at all times and upon all occasions, to behave
yourselves to all persons in a civil and respectful manner, by which you may prevent
contention and remove every just occasion of complaint. We beseech you to reflect, it
is by your good conduct alone, that you can refute the objections which have been
made against you as rational and moral creatures, and remove many of the difficulties,
which have occurred in the general emancipation of such of your brethren as are yet in
bondage.

With hearts anxious for your welfare, we commend you to the guidance and protection
of that BEING who is able to keep you from all evil, and who is the common Father and
Friend of the whole family of mankind.[1]

To the Free Africans and other free People of color in the
UNITED STATES

The Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies in the United States, having
again assembled for the purpose of promoting your happiness, consider it their duty,
once more to call your attention to the advice which was addressed to you by the

Convention of last year; and which we subjoin to the present address, in order that you
may at one view be able to profit by these collected advices of your sincerest friends.
The oftner we review that advice, the more we are impressed with its importance, and
the more anxious we are to urge your strict and faithful observance of it. We shall only
add thereto, at present, one other request, and that is, that you would avoid gaming in
all its varied forms—the ruinous and miserable consequences of this most pernicious
evil, are so notorious, and so generally acknowledged, that we cannot too forcibly
endeavour to guard you against it. It subjects you to the control of the most degrading
passions, and too generally leads to the loss of fortune, reputation, and of every good
principle.

We can with peculiar satisfaction inform you, that schools and places of worship have
been established, and that they are well attended by people of your color, in New-York,
New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and other places; and we are happy to
find, that many of you have evinced, by your prudent and moral conduct, that you are
not unworthy of the freedom you enjoy.

Go on in these paths of virtue:—By persevering in them you will justify the solicitude
and labors of your friends in your behalf, and furnish an additional argument for the
emancipation of such of your brethren as are yet in bondage in the United States and in
other parts of the world.[2]

To the free Blacks, and other free People of Colour, in
the United States

The American Convention for promoting the Abolition of Slavery and improving the
Condition of the African Race, believe it proper to address you, on subjects highly
interesting to your well being.

You can have no doubt but that our views are disinterested, and we therefore think
ourselves entitled to your attention, whilst we speak of matters in which you are greatly
concerned.

As you are free men, we wish you to place a proper estimate on your privileges, and to
act in a manner becoming your character; that, by your worthy conduct, you may
destroy the prejudices which some persons entertain against you, and relieve your
friends from the censures which they incur in consequence of your errors; we beseech
you, reflect seriously and endeavor to remove these reproaches; and it is our earnest
and affectionate advice, that you remember your great and good Creator, who has
placed you in this life, in order that you may, by acting well your part here, be qualified
for everlasting happiness hereafter—Can you expect that happiness, if instead of
attending places of divine worship, there to pray for his holy aid, you spend the
Sabbath, as well as much of the other parts of your time, in rolicking, drinking, or other
evil practices, which destroy your own comfort, give cause of offense to your
neighbours, and above all greatly displease that all-seeing God, before whom you must
appear to give an account for all your conduct? Let us prevail upon you to refrain from
the use of spirituous liquors, which have occasioned misery to thousands—from
gaming, a vice which will bring poverty upon your families, and from frolicking and
amusements, which lead to idleness and expence; these habits of dissipation, can in
no wise add to your comfort. Be industrious, diligent in your business, frugal in your

expences, and endeavour to lay up part of your earnings against a time of need. Some
of you can read, such know the advantages of it; you who cannot, strive to acquire that
knowledge.—Surely this knowledge is an object of great importance, were it only for
the opportunity it affords of becoming acquainted with that best of books, the Bible. The
holy Scriptures of the old and new testament, contain invaluable treasures of
instruction, and of comfort. It would give us much satisfaction, could we oftener see
them in the hands of those who are able to read them, and that an increasing anxiety to
become possessed of their contents, and to profit by their precepts, might be more and
more observable among you.

Very much depends upon the right education of your children, endeavour to have them
brought up to labour, and taught to read and write; early place them apprentice with
suitable masters, and whether they be tradesmen or farmers, be always particularly
careful to prefer such, as by their example, will encourage them in industry and
sobriety.

In all your dealings be just and honest, give no cause of offence to any, and if any
dispute, either among yourselves, or with others, should unhappily arise, in which you
find difficulty, apply to such persons in your neighborhoods as you know to be your
friends, and able to give you advice and assistance. Be assured you will find this
practice contributes much more to your peace and interest, than the settling of your
differences at law.

Be careful to observe your marriage covenants, remembering that those who violate
them, will fall under the displeasure of the Almighty. We wish also to impress your
minds, the necessity of having your marriage ceremonies legally performed, and that
the births and deaths in your respective families, be carefully registered. In the words of
an address heretofore made, we recommend you at all times, and upon all occasions,
to behave yourselves in a civil and respectful manner, by which you may prevent
contention and remove many causes of complaint: we beseech you to reflect, that you
may, by your good conduct, refute the objections which have been made against you
as rational and moral creatures and lessen many of the difficulties which now occur in
the emancipation of such of your brethren, as are yet in bondage.

In all your communications with those of your brethren who remain in slavery, we desire
you unceasingly to impress them with the necessity of contentment with their situations,
submission to their masters, and fidelity to their interests—that they be not merely eye-
servants, but carefully perform the labours assigned them, and manage everything
intrusted to their care, with as much faithfulness as if it were their own. By this conduct
they will excite in their masters, a disposition to treat them with humanity and
gentleness, and to increase the number of their privileges and comforts; and contribute
to the peace of their own minds.

Console them with the reflection, that unmixed happiness in a future life, will be the
portion of all good men, whatever may have been their lot here below.[3]

To the free Blacks and other free people of colour in the
United States

The American Convention for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and improving the
Condition of the African Race, having again assembled for the purpose of advancing
your best interest, and the welfare of your offspring; deem it expedient, once more to
address you as children of one Almighty Parent, and members of the same extended
family. The objects we have so long, and so assiduously pursued, are highly interesting
to society at large, and infinitely important to you in particular.... For their attainment, we
therefore claim your zealous and uniform co-operation. This demand we make with
much confidence, as we are persuaded many of you have already verified, in your own
experience, the propriety of former recommendations. You have found that industry and
economy have procured for you, independence; that temperance has greatly promoted,
if not absolutely secured to you, health; and that the cultivation of the faculties of the
mind, has enlarged the capacity for discharging your various duties, and for enjoying
the numerous benefits you have received. On the contrary, you have seen that
idleness, gambling, and dissipation, have uniformly produced poverty and disgrace;
that intemperance has generally been the parent of loathsome disease, and the cause
of premature death; and that the consequences of ignorance are too frequently,
contention and loss. Trusting then, that we can with confidence appeal to your own
experience, for a test of the truth of precepts so often inculcated, we beseech you with
anxious and tender solicitude to bear them constantly in remembrance, and, with a
steady zeal, put them in practice. We are well aware that human nature is frail, and
prone to depart from the strait path of rectitude. On this weakness let us not however
rely for a justification of our deviations, but rather let it operate as an inducement to
double our diligence and increase our caution. Then while we are conscious of having
honestly and earnestly endeavored to discharge the duties we owe to our Maker and to
each other, we can look with more confidence to our great Creator for pardon of our
past transgressions and strength to preserve us from a repetition of them.

In our observations thus far we have chiefly endeavoured to convince you, that on your
own conduct depends your prosperity and happiness, but be assured the
consequences do not rest there. The greater portion of your brethren still remains in
bondage. One great obstacle to their release, it is in your power and it is eminently your
duty to remove; the enemies of your liberty have loudly and constantly asserted that
you are not qualified to enjoy it, that your proneness to dissipation, your inattention to
your particular concerns, and your disregard of the interests of each other, will ever
produce your own wretchedness and lasting mischief to those among whom you dwell:
in what degree the imputations may be just we leave to your own candour to decide;
but we cannot leave the subject without conjuring you to remove, by the utmost
circumspection of conduct, the causes that have been and continue to be urged against
you; and thereby contribute your part towards the liberation of such of your fellow men
as yet remain in the shackles of slavery.

The education of your offspring is a subject of lasting importance, and has obtained a
large portion of our attention and care. In this too we call upon you for your aid; many of
you have been favoured to acquire a comfortable portion of property, and are
consequently enabled to contribute in some measure to the means of educating your
offspring. While you thus benefit your own, you will also confer a favor on the children
of those who are indigent; in as much as there will remain a large proportion of other
funds to be applied to their improvement.

Having thus fully communicated our sentiments on subjects the most important to your
present and eternal welfare, we beg you to give them your close attention, and

sincerely wish you that happiness which is consistent with the will of an all-wise and
protecting Providence.[4]

To the free people of colour and descendants of the African
Race, in the United States

The American Convention composed of Delegates from several Abolition and
Manumission Societies in the United States, being assembled in Philadelphia, for the
purpose of promoting the great cause of emancipation, and for the melioration of the
condition and the general improvement of the descendants of the African race; have
deemed it their duty to address you, on some subjects intimately connected with your
future welfare and prosperity. They perform this duty the more willingly, from a
conviction that such counsel and advice as they may communicate, will be received
and listened to with attention, from the circumstance of its proceeding from those who
have long had your best interests at heart.

Vain will be the desire on the part of the friends of abolition, to behold their labours
crowned with success, unless those colourd people who have obtained their freedom,
should evince by their morality and orderly deportment, that they are deserving the rank
and station which they have obtained in society: unavailing will be the most strenuous
exertions of humane philanthropists in your behalf, if you should not be found to second
their endeavours, by a course of conduct corresponding with the expectations and the
wishes of your friends.

We intreat you therefore by the ties which bind us together as children of one common
Creator;—by the obligation imposed upon us, as joint objects of redeeming love; as
heirs alike with us, of the rewards and benedictions which rest upon all who perform the
religious and social obligations of life with fidelity;—by the sacred duties which you owe
to yourselves, and to the Author of your existence; seriously to consider the great
responsibility which rests upon you as Freemen, so to order and regulate your conduct
and deportment in the world and amongst men, that your example may exhibit a
standing refutation of the charge, that you are unworthy of freedom. And let us impress
it upon YOU, whose opportunities of information have been greater than the generality
of your colour, to use the influence which your superior knowledge may have given you
among your brethren, to dissuade them from the commission and practice of those
vices which degrade and disgrace them in the eyes of mankind; particularly let it be
your constant endeavour to repress among them dram drinking, frequenting of tippling
shops and places of diversion, idleness and dissipation of every description, and to
promote and encourage as much as possible, habits of sobriety, industry and economy,
punctual attendance on places of religious worship, particularly on the day appointed
for rest from labour, and for the exercises of devotion; avoiding noisy and disorderly
conduct on those days, as well as at other times; and to demean themselves peaceably
and respectfully, towards all those with whom they have intercourse. This will do more,
towards advancing your cause in the earth, than the labours of your friends can effect
in your behalf.

The great work of emancipation is not to be accomplished in a day;—it must be the
result of time, of long and continued exertions: it is for you to show by an orderly and
worthy deportment that you are deserving of the rank which you have attained.
Endeavour as much as possible to use economy in your expences, so that you may be

enabled to save from your earnings, something for the education of your children, and
for your support in time of sickness, and in old age: and let all those who by attending
to this admonition, have acquired means, send their children to school as soon as they
are old enough, where their morals will be an object of attention, as well as their
improvement in school learning; and when they arrive at a suitable age, let it be your
especial care to have them instructed in some mechanical art suited to their capacities,
or in agricultural pursuits; by which they may afterwards be enabled to support
themselves and a family. Encourage, also, those among you who are qualified as
teachers of schools, and when you are of ability to pay, never send your children to
free-schools; this may be considered as robbing the poor, of the opportunities which
were intended for them alone.

Keep out of all contentions and law-suits with each other; by which your valuable time,
which should be spent in useful occupations, is grievously misapplied, your money
wasted, and your character in the world, is unhappily injured and degraded:—it is a
mortifying sight to your friends, to see the coloured people bringing each other before
the civil officers and in courts of justice for trifling causes of contention, which by
exercising an amiable and forbearing disposition might be easily settled, without going
to law, and spending their time and money, in useless disputations.

Be faithful to the obligations of the marriage covenant. Be diligent in your respective
callings, so that you may not disappoint the expectations of those who have confided in
you, and in the capacity of domestics or hired servants, shew yourselves faith-ful;
remembering that no situation in life is disgraceful in itself, but that upon your own
conduct, will depend the estimation in which you will be held by others; and if you
perform your duty with fidelity, you will be respected and esteemed. Be just in all your
dealings, and strictly punctual in the performance of all your promises; so shall you gain
the approbation and the confidence of your white neighbours, and justify the conduct of
those who have laboured for your emancipation.

Let an especial attention be had to keep a regular record of your marriages, and of the
births of your children, by which their ages may at any time be legally established;—this
will be of essential service to you in placing them out as apprentices and prevent
impositions being practised upon you. Finally—be sober; be watchful over every part of
your conduct, keeping constantly in view, that the freedom of many thousands of your
colour, who still remain in slavery, will be hastened and promoted by your leading a life
of virtue and sobriety.[5]

FOOTNOTES:
[1] American Convention Abolition Societies. Minutes, 1796, pp. 12, 14.

[2] American Convention of Abolition Societies, Minutes of, 1797, pp. 16
and 17.

[3] American Convention Abolition Societies, Minutes, 1804, pp. 30-33.

[4] Minutes of Proceedings of Tenth American Convention for promoting
the Abolition of Slavery, 1805, pp. 36-39.

[5] Minutes of the American Convention Abolition Societies, 1818. Pages
43 and 47.

SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES
Juan Bautista Cesar

A few years ago a bookseller handed me a book of MSS. papers for
classification. I noted that they belonged to some military court or the
archives of a Spanish Audiencia having jurisdiction in New Spain.
Most of them had something to do with Texas when it was part of
Mexico and belonged to the kingdom of Spain. These papers were of
the highest historical value in so far as Texas was concerned. My
curiosity was aroused by the original transcript of a court martial
called upon to judge the transgressions of the Anglo-Americans, as
they were called in those days. From these papers Philip Nolan,
around whom a halo of false patriotism still lingers, was nothing
more or less in the judgment of the court martial than a horse thief. It
was the practice of Nolan, Bean, Fero and others to make periodical
incursions across the State and stampede home, domestic, and wild
horses for their mutual benefit. On this occasion the Spaniards were
prepared for the malefactors and when surrounded in their
provisional fort they refused at first to surrender, but the killing of
Nolan put an end to all resistance and Elias Bean, David Fero and
the Negro Cesar were put in St. Charles jail to await the slow
machinery of the Spanish courts. Bean and Fero attempted to
escape from the jail. One of these patriots became intimate with the
jailer's wife and his intercepted notes showed him a depraved
specimen of humanity. Among the papers examined was a
deposition of Nolan's slave known in the histories of Texas by the
name of Cesar, under the Spanish correct form he takes the proper
name of Juan Bautista Cesar, a native of Grenada, when the island
belonged to France. He was a professed Christian belonging to the
Roman Catholic faith. So that during the dawn of the incipient
difficulties surrounding Texas, therefore, when becoming part of the
United States, there figured a Negro the tool of his master, in
common with Nolan and others, reputed horse thieves, the patriots

whose depredations were as annoying to the Mexicans in 1804 as
Villa's bandit incursions (during 1914-20) are reprehensible to
Americans.

The manuscript follows:
Juan Bautista Cesar.

En el referido Presidio de San Carlos en el mismo dia, mes y año arriba citado el
nominado Sr. Capitán hizo comparacer ante si al Interprete José Jesús de los Santos y
al Negro Juan Bautista, conocido con el nombre de Cesar á quienes juramento en
debida forma ante mí el Escribano y bajo lo cual prometió el primero traducir fielmente
lo que declara et expresáda Juan Bautista y este decir verdad en lo que supiere y fuere
preguntado y siendo por su Nombre, y Patria y Religión. Dijo que se llama Juan
Bautista Cesar, que es natural de las islas Francesas que llaman la Granada y que es
Católico Apostolico Romano.

Preguntado si sabe porqué está preso: dijo. Que sabe se haya preso por haber
acompañado á su amo Dn. Felipe Nolan en la entrada que hizo á la Provincia de
Texas.

Preguntado si no ha habido algun noevo motivo para que la prision se le agrave; Dijo
que no sabe si habia habido algun motivo para tenerlo en el calabozo en donde ahora
existe privandolo del alivio que ántes disfrutaba de tener todo el Presidio por Cárcel.

Preguntado que es lo que sabe de la fuga que intentaron hacer los Anglo-Americanos
compañeros de Nolan. Dijo; Que la fuga si la intentaron los, Anglo Americanos se la
han ocultado al declarante pues jámas le han comunicado cosa alguna relativa á ella y
antes bien ha observado que cuando hablan entre sí los expresados Anglo-
Americanos y el declarante se presenta, luega callan y solo continuan hablando cosas
diferentes: que el diá que pusieron al que declara en el calabozo en union de Elias
Bean y David Fero oyo el declarante que David pregunto a Elias que si habia escrito
alguna carta á Chihuahua y respondiendole Elias que si, le contestó David ya verás
como por eso nos ponen en el calabozo y te apostara una oreja que es asi; que nada
mas has oido ni visto nunca sobre la fuga de que se trata: Que el declarante desde
que se murió su amo Nolan siempre ha sido mirado con desprecio por los Anglo-
Americanos compañeros de aquel y por lo mismo le ha quadrado mas alojarse siempre
con los Españoles como se verificó cuando lo pusieron en el calabozo que dormia con
tres de los Españoles.

Preguntado si sabe o ha oíds que lesl Anglo-Americanos tuviesen prevenidas Armas y
municiones de boca y guerra para meditar su fuga intentarla: Dijo que nada sabe sobre
lo que contiene la Pregunta, no ha oido cosa alguna sobre el particular.

Preguntado si tiene algo mas que declarar sobre el particular: Dijo que no tiene mas
que declarar sobre el particular y que lo dicho es la verdad a cargo del juramento que
lleva hecho en que se afirmó y ratificó despues de enterado por el Interprete de lo que
contiene esta su declarencion y por no saber escribir pusieron ambos la señar de cruz
firmando dicho señor y el presente Escribano.

(Firmado) Texada X X Ante mi Jose Cano

Provincia de la Nueve Vizcaya Año de 1804. Diligencias practicadas de órden del Sr.
Comandants General en la Fuga que intentaron hacer los Anglo-Americanos.
Comisionado el Capiten Dn Antonio Garcia de Texada.

Arthur A. Schomburg.

A Benevolent Slaveholder of Color

John Barry Meachum, a free man of color, became prominent as
pastor of the African Baptist Church at St. Louis. Meachum was born
a slave, but obtained his liberty by his own industry. By his hard
earnings he purchased his father, a slave, and Baptist preacher in
Virginia. He was then a resident of Kentucky, where he married a
slave, and where he professed religion.

Soon thereafter his wife's master removed to Missouri, and
Meachum followed her, arriving at St. Louis, with three dollars, in
1815. Being a carpenter and a cooper, he soon obtained
employment, purchased his wife and children, commenced
preaching, and was ordained in 1825. During subsequent years he
purchased, including adults and children, about twenty slaves, but he
never sold them again. His method was to place them in service,
encourage them to form habits of industry and economy, and when
they had paid for themselves, he set them free. In 1835 he built a
steamboat, which he provided with a library, and from which he
excluded the use and sale of intoxicating drinks. He was then worth
about $25,000.

He was not less enterprising in religious matters. The church of
which he was pastor, consisted of about 220 members of whom 200
were slaves. A large Sabbath school, a temperance society, a deep-
toned missionary spirit, good order and correct habits among the
slave population in the city, strict and regular discipline in the church,
were among the fruits of his arduous, persevering labor.[1]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Liberator, December, 10, 1836.

BOOK REVIEWS
The Republic of Liberia. By R. C. F. Maughan, F.R.G.S. and F.Z.S.,
etc., H. B. M., Consul-General at Monrovia. New York, Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1919. Pp. 299. Price $6.50.

This work is a general description of the Negro Republic, with its
history, commerce, agriculture, flora, fauna, and present methods of
administration. The book contains several maps and thirty-seven
illustrations. The more interesting topics as to history and
administration appear first and those of the statistically scientific and
commercial order come nearer to the end.

The book was written in 1918 before the United States took sufficient
interest in the republic to bring about certain epoch-making changes.
The United States has since offered the country a loan of five million
dollars and with the approval of Great Britain and France and with
the request of the Liberian Government has consented to become
the sole adviser in Liberian affairs. Since then Hon. C. D. B. King,
who became President of Liberia in January 1920, has participated
in the world's peace conference and visited Europe and America,
where the heads of nations have assured him of deeper interest in
Liberia than they have heretofore manifested.

This book was written from a point of view decidedly different from
that of most writers on Liberia, whose tone is that of "gentle
melancholy," descanting "upon the country and the people to whom
it belongs as with a pen dipped in sighs." Instead of criticising he has
in most cases merely described. Where criticisms have crept in they
have been given in a spirit of sympathetic friendship. He finds in the
country, therefore, much to admire and praise and an economic
situation "which will assuredly bid fair, when normal conditions shall
have returned to us once more, to attain to a measure of gratifying
expansion and progress." He believes that Liberia will then be in a
position "of having her feet placed firmly upon the ladder which

should bring her in time to great heights. The author concedes that
the rung which Liberia has already reached is not a high one
perhaps, "but the way before her seems plain and unmistakable." He
believes that the present guidance from the outside guarantees
these most sanguine expectations in as much as the foreigners
controlling the financial policy of the little republic are hard-working
men who have already set the house somewhat in order. This,
supplemented by a liberal policy of internal improvements, will result
in the prosperity of the whole land.

In discussing this phase of the administration of Liberian affairs, the
author does not bring out any particular resentment on the part of the
natives as to foreign interference. The native officials welcome
helpful advice and when not given they sometimes seek it. The
author himself came into contact with a number of functionaries who
frankly asked him to tell them what he thought of their methods.
Except so far as such foreign guidance may bring financial relief,
however, it is doubtful that these natives so easily yield to this sort of
domination; for many Liberians are to-day endeavoring to get rid of
the American loan which they fear may lead to conquest like that in
Haiti. On the whole, however, this work comes nearer to the true
portraiture of the Liberian situation than most volumes in this field.

The United States in Our Own Times, 1865-1920. By Paul Haworth,
Ph.D. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920. Pp. vii, 563.

The publication of this volume is justified by the author on the ground
that in as much as an important object of history study is to enable
one to understand the present, greater emphasis than hitherto must
be laid on the period since the Civil War. Hoping then to supply the
need of students who desire to know our own country in our own
times the author has directed his attention to the problems of the
new day, to social and industrial questions which have attained
importance since the Civil War, and which, as the author views it,
served as a break between these two distinct periods in our history.

Briefly stated, the author covers a little better than usually the field in
which many others have recently written. There appears the
aftermath of the Rebellion, then the drama of Reconstruction
followed by national development making possible a new era, the
changing order, the revival of the Democratic Party, hard times, free
silver, troubles with Spain, imperialism, Roosevelt and the Panama
Canal, the New West, Progressivism, the "New Freedom," "Watchful
Waiting," the World War, and the Peace Conference. The book is
well illustrated with useful maps showing the West in 1876, the Cuba
and Porto Rican campaigns, the Philippines, Mexico, West Indies,
and Central America, the percentage of foreign-born whites in the
total population in 1910, the percentage of Negroes in the total
population in 1910, the Western Front in 1918, and the United States
in 1920.

Discussing thus a period during which the most important problems
before the American people has been how to segregate the Negroes
within the law, the author touched here and there the so-called
Negro question. While Dr. Haworth has not shown all of the breadth
of mind expected in an historian he has been much more liberal than
the pseudo-historians who endeavor merely to justify the proscription
of the freedmen on the basis of so-called racial inferiority. Dr.
Haworth does occasionally mention a Negro as having said or done
something worthy of notice. In the average Reconstruction history
there is no personal mention of the Negro except for the purpose to
condemn him and to advise him how to make himself acceptable to
his so-called superiors.

In his last chapter which he calls "A Golden Age in History" he says
some things which we do not find in the works of the would-be
historians of this period. On page 509 he writes: "A historian ought
not to suppress uncomfortable facts, and it is undeniable that the
treatment of the Negroes forms a blot on America's fair name. In
parts of the South they are kept in a state of practical serfdom; in all
cities they are herded into unsanitary districts; they are denied equal
opportunities for advancement; and not infrequently they are
maltreated and murdered by brutal mobs. It is true that individual

Negroes, by fiendish assaults on white women, now and then rouse
men to frenzy, but statistics show that only about a fifth of the
lynchings of Negroes are because of the 'usual crime.' Burning at the
stake is never justifiable under any circumstance, and it is
undeniable that in race riots scenes of horror have been enacted that
are a disgrace to American civilization. Such scenes are sadly out of
place in a nation that proclaims itself the special champion of liberty
and justice and which enlists in a crusade 'to make the world safe for
democracy.'"

The American Colonization Society, 1817-1840. By Early Lee Fox,
Ph.D., Professor of History in Randolph-Macon College.
Baltimore. The John Hopkins Press, 1919. Pp. viii, 231.

This is another study made under the direction of the Johns Hopkins
University faculty of Historical and Political Science and like many
others of this order lies in the field of southern history and is written
from the ex parte point of view. It does not cover the whole history of
the American Colonization Society but restricts itself to that period
when it was largely a southern enterprise primarily interested in
getting rid of the Negro. Throughout the story there is too much effort
to evade eloquent facts, too much effort to excuse the sins of the
South by showing that the North itself was once slaveholding and
slavetrading. On the whole, however, the author has in the use of
such valuable material as the manuscripts and especially the letters
of the American Colonization Society brought to light significant facts
which the historian will be glad to use more advantageously.

After a brief introduction the book treats of the free Negro and the
slave. Then comes the chapter on the organization, purpose, and
early record of the Society. Attention is next directed to the conflict
between the colonizationists and the abolitionists. Colonization is
afterward discussed in connection with emancipation and finally with
the African slave trade. Throughout the whole treatise there is a
defense of the "lofty" motives of the men who labored so hard for the

expatriation of the Negroes. As the author sees it, although the
Society did not send many Negroes to Africa, it was after all a
success; for it had a bearing on the emancipation of slaves, and on
the suppression of the African slave trade. Abolitionists, attacking
this undertaking based upon national sentiment, were endangering
the union by their propaganda founded upon sectional sentiment.
Colonization, therefore, was just because it was "born out of a desire
to unite the North and the South in the settlement of the Negro
problem." The purpose of the treatise then is to (page 127) "set forth
the true aims of orthodox Colonizationists, or from another point to
demonstrate that their aims were as sincerely expressed as sound
policy would admit, and that, where motives were concealed, they
were concealed in order to secure the freedom of the slaves."

Written from this point of view the dissertation becomes too much of
a polemic to be accepted as a scientific treatise. Too much space is
devoted to the task of unifying the widely different views of the
colonizationists, too much effort is made to contrast the methods of
the colonizationists with those of the abolitionists. The author does
not seem to realize or at least fails to admit that the abolitionists
were radical reformers seeking to eradicate the cause of social
disease whereas the colonizationists were merely treating the
symptoms of the malady in undertaking the impossible task of
transplanting a whole race.

The general argument of the author in favor of the beneficence of
colonization is not convincing. There is no authority for the
contention that colonization promoted emancipation when the
records show that the majority of slaveholders who supported it had
in mind the expatriation of the free Negroes who among the
bondmen were a living testimony against slavery. To say that
colonization might check the slave trade by establishing one small
colony in Africa is about as unsound, contended some free Negroes
in 1831, as to 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 part of the
United States." It is an insult to the intelligence of men who have

seriously considered history to say that colonization was so built
upon national sentiment as to have a direct bearing on the
preservation of the Union when the colonizationists differed widely
among themselves in the very beginning and finally divided just as
the abolitionists, who at one time had also a national standing, in that
most anti-slavery societies were once found in the South. Until
Negro history, therefore, has been removed from the hands of those
using it to whitewash their ancestors the world must still lack
knowledge as to how the progress of mankind has been influenced
by the Negro.

The Voice of the Negro. By Robert T. Kerlin, Professor of English at
the Virginia Military Institute. New York, E. P. Dutton and
Company, 1920. Pp. xii, 188.

The purpose of this book may best be expressed in the words of the
author himself, when he says, in the preface: "The following work is
a compilation from the colored press of America for the four months
[July 1st to November 1st, 1919] immediately succeeding the
Washington riot. It is designed to show the Negro's reaction to that
and like events following, and to the World War and the discussion of
the Treaty. It may, in the Editor's estimation, be regarded as a
primary document in promoting a knowledge of the Negro, his point
of view, his way of thinking upon race relations, his grievances, his
aspirations, his demands." A book of such purport, especially when
coming from the pen of a white man, must attract attention, and if the
newspapers and periodicals from which the various extracts are
chosen may be called truly representative, as in this case they are,
the compiler has performed a distinct service in the field of American
History.

Professor Kerlin has culled his clippings from eighty current Negro
periodicals, published from Massachusetts to Georgia, and ranging
from the startlingly radical to the most hide-bound conservative type.
He has used only articles written by Negroes in Negro publications,

has sorted them and grouped them under ten heads, entitled
respectively: The Colored Press, The New Era, The Negro's
Reaction to the World War, The Negro's Grievances and Demands,
Riots, Lynchings, The South and the Negro, The Negro and Labor
Unionism and Bolshevism, Negro Progress, and The Lyric Cry,—a
remarkable assortment of first-hand information concerning Negro
thought with regard to each topic.

Professor Kerlin makes no attempt to interpret the material of his
book; he merely presents it. It is for him who reads also to read
between the lines. It is doubtless impossible to choose any one
expression that will accurately represent Negro thought as caught in
these pages, yet four lines of poetry included in the book will serve
as well as any:

"We would be manly—proving well our worth,
Then would not cringe to any god on earth.

. . . . . . . . .
.

"We would be peaceful, Father,—but when we
must,
Help us to thunder hard the blow that's just!"

This is the Voice of the Negro which Professor Kerlin intimates
cannot go unheeded.

The book might have been made more useful by the addition of an
alphabetical and topical index of the periodicals used.

D. A. Lane.

NOTES
The following account of the centenary celebration of St. Philip's
Episcopal Church from the New York World of November 14, 1920,
will be interesting to all persons interested in Negro history:

"The Right Rev. Charles Sumner Burch, D.D., Bishop of New York,
and the Right Rev. Henry Beard Delany, D.D., Suffragan Bishop of
North Carolina, will participate in the centennial celebration at St.
Philip's Church, No. 212 West 134th Street, the Rev. H. C. Bishop,
rector, which will begin to-day.

"One hundred years ago Nov. 14 St. Philip's Church was
incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. The event is
significant, for it antedated the Civil War by forty-one years and the
Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln by forty-five years. It
is not only, nor primarily, an ecclesiastical event, but a political and
social one as well, inasmuch as this act of Legislature recognized
and confirmed the citizenship of the petitioners, showing that these
colored Episcopalians were an integral part of the body politic.

"It was in 1809, under the leadership of Mr. McCoombs, a lay reader,
that a mission for colored people was opened in a school room on
the corner of Frankfort and William Streets, where they remained
until 1812, and after the death of Mr. McCoombs removed to a room
in Cliff Street with Peter Williams, Jr., a colored man, as lay reader,
where they remained five years, moving from there to a school room
on Rose Street.

"In 1819 three lots were obtained on the west side of Collect, now
Centre Street, and upon this site a wooden building was erected at a
cost of $5,000. It was consecrated by Bishop John Henry Hobart,
July 19, 1819, and was named St. Philip's Church. After its
incorporation in 1820 Mr. Williams, who had been ordained to the
Deaconate in October, was appointed minister in charge, Dec. 24,

1821, the building was destroyed by fire, but was rebuilt the following
year of brick at a cost of $8,000.

"Mr. Williams was advanced to the priesthood in 1827, and became
the first rector of the church. He died in 1840. In 1853 the parish was
received into union with the Convention of the Diocese of New York.
At that time the church was at No. 305 Mulberry Street, and the Rev.
William Morris LL.D., rector of Trinity School, was the officiating
minister.

"The parish was without a rector from 1840 to 1872, when the Rev.
William J. Alston, trained at Kenyon College, Gambier, O., was called
to the rectorship. He continued in office until 1874, and there was a
vacancy until 1875, when the Rev. Joseph J. Atwell, a native of
Barbados, British West Indies, was elected rector. His death in 1882
again left the office vacant until 1886, when the present incumbent,
the Rev. Hutchens C. Bishop, was elected.

"During Mr. Atwell's incumbency the Parish House for Aged Women
was founded. The long years of vacancy retarded the growth of the
parish so that in 1885 there were but 284 communicants after a
group existence of seventy-six years.

"In 1886 the congregation made another journey, locating at No. 161
West 125th Street, where it remained until 1910, when, following the
migration northward, lots running from 133d to 134th Street were
obtained and a commodious church and parish house were erected.
The growth of the parish since that time has been phenomenal.
There are now over 2,500 communicants and not room enough in
the parish house to accommodate the various activities.

"At the present time St. Philip's may be said to be the only church in
the neighborhood in any way equipped to serve the colored people
of the community. Churchmen point out that if there is one place in
Manhattan where there should be buildings adapted for indoor
recreation and entertainment for the young colored people, it is that
particular part of the city. They claim there should be day nurseries,
gymnasiums, beneficial societies and forums for the discussion of

industrial problems, where employer and employee might meet and
each present his side.

"The centennial celebration will extend over a week. Bishop Burch
will preach at the special thanksgiving service to-day at 11 o'clock,
while Bishop Delany and one of the two negro Bishops in the
Episcopal Church will make an address at the evening service.

"There will be an historical pageant to-morrow night. A public
meeting with the pastors of St. Mark's, Olivet, Mother, A. M. E. Zion,
St. Cyprian, George Foster Peabody and James Weldon Johnson as
the speakers will take place Tuesday night. Following this meeting
there will be a reception and parish supper in the basement of the
church. Wednesday night is set apart for a praise service, when the
Rev. Dr. Manning, Dr. Stires, Dr. Grant and Dr. Bragg will deliver
addresses.

"The newly organized Provincial Conference of Church Workers
Among Colored People will hold its sessions Thursday and Friday,
when representative ministers and lay workers will participate. The
conference will be addressed Friday night by Dr. Harry T. Ward of
Union Theological Seminary and Dr. Robert Russa Moton, Principal
of Tuskegee Institute."

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING,
WASHINGTON, D. C., NOVEMBER 18, AND
19, 1920.
The annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Negro Life
and History was called to order by Dr. C. G. Woodson, the Director
of Research and Editor of the Journal of Negro History. After a few
preliminary remarks, President John W. Davis of the West Virginia
Collegiate Institute was asked to open the meeting by the invocation
of divine blessing. Professor William Hansberry of Straight College
was introduced to deliver a lecture on the Ancient and Mediaeval
Culture of the People of Yorubuland. This was a most informing
disquisition on the achievements of these people prior to the time
when they came into contact with the so-called more advanced
Asiatic and European races. On the whole, Professor Hansberry
made a strong argument in behalf of the contention that the culture
of these people was indigenous and that brought into comparison
with that of the ancient Greek and Roman it does not materially
suffer.

Mr. A. O. Stafford, the principal of the Lincoln School of Washington,
D. C., then read a very illuminating and informing paper on African
folk lore. He discussed briefly the various authorities producing
works in this field and indicated sources of information which have
not yet been explored. He then made a general survey of African folk
lore, showing how the Negro mind from the very earliest periods of
African history exhibited independent thought and philosophical
tendency.

At the conclusion of these addresses there followed a general
discussion in which participated Principal D. S. S. Goodloe of the
Maryland State Normal and Industrial School, Mr. John W. Cromwell,
President of the American Negro Academy, Mr. Monroe N. Work,

Director of Research and Records, Tuskegee Institute, and President
John W. Davis of the West Virginia Collegiate Institute.

At two o'clock the Association held a business session. The general
routine of business was followed. There being no unfinished
business or reports of special committees, the Association heard the
reports of the officers of last year. The Director read his report and
the report of the Secretary-Treasurer was presented by his assistant,
Miss A. H. Smith. They follow:

The Report of the Director
During the year 1919-1920 the Association has made steady progress in spite of the
difficulties resulting from the increasing cost of labor and supplies. There has been
some difficulty in raising additional funds adequate to the needs of the Association and
for this reason the organization is now suffering from a deficit of about $2500. Persons
of means, however, have from time to time volunteered so as to give sufficient relief to
keep the work going. Efforts are now being made to remove this deficit in the near
future through the increase in the contributions annually received and gifts from other
friends who will be asked to make sacrifices for the cause.

The study of Negro history has not extended by leaps and bounds but the progress of
the work is in every way encouraging. The number of subscribers to the Journal of
Negro History has not increased because of the necessity to double the subscription
price in keeping with the demands of high prices, but the influence of the work has
considerably expanded. This magazine is now being used as collateral reading in most
of the leading white and Negro institutions of the country and the number of classes
thus engaged are increasing every year. There is also a healthy public opinion in favor
of prosecuting the study of Negro history more vigorously. Almost any book setting forth
facts as to what the Negro has thought and felt and done now has considerable
demand among persons in this country and abroad. While this Association does not
claim credit for all which has been accomplished in this field, it has certainly given a
decided stimulus to the work.

It will be interesting to report, moreover, the number of institutions closely cooperating
with the Association in prosecuting the study of the Negro. Among these may be
mentioned special classes in this work at Howard University, conducted by the Director
himself last year, and at the West Virginia Collegiate Institute, where he is now
engaged. In Lincoln Institute, Missouri, considerable good has been accomplished
among students even of a high school grade, whereas at the State Normal and
Industrial Institute at Frankfort, Kentucky, the work has interested a larger number of
more advanced students. Institutions like Straight College, Fisk, Atlanta, Morehouse,
Wilberforce, and Lincoln are laying a good foundation in this field.

Report of the Secretary-Treasurer.

The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Incorporated, Washington, D.
C.

Gentlemen: I hereby submit to you a report of the amount of money received and
expended by the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Incorporated, from
September 30, 1919 to September 30, 1920, inclusive:

Receipts Expenditures

Subscriptions $ 778.32 Printing and Stationery $2,733.54
Memberships 160.00 Petty Cash Expenses 551.26
Contributions 3,331.00 Rent and Light 250.30
News Agents 69.47 Stenographic Service 901.80
Advertisements 264.05 Miscellaneous Expenses 269.98
Books 19.63 Total Expenditures $4,706.88
Rent 15.00 Balance September 30, 1920. 48.86
———————— ————————
Total Receipts, Sept. 30, $4,755.74
1919, to Sept. 30,
1920 $4,637.47
Balance Sept. 30, 1919 118.27
————————
$4,755.74

Respectfully submitted,
Alethe H. Smith
Assist. to the Secretary-Treasurer.

After a brief discussion these reports were accepted and approved.
The Association then spent some time in discussing the advisability
of holding annual meetings at strategic points and there prevailed a
motion to the effect that the Executive Council be requested to hold
the next annual meeting of the Association in Atlanta, Georgia. The
meeting adjourned after electing the following as officers: Robert E.
Park, President, Jesse E. Moorland, Secretary-Treasurer, Carter G.
Woodson, Director of Research and Editor; who with Julius
Rosenwald, George Foster Peabody, James H. Dillard, John R.
Hawkins, Emmett J. Scott, William G. Willcox, Bishop John Hurst,
Albert Bushnell Hart, Thomas Jesse Jones, A. L. Jackson, Moorfield
Storey, and Bishop R. E. Jones, were made members of the
Executive Council.

At the evening session at the John Wesley A. M. E. Z. Church, the
Association was addressed by three men of distinction. The first
speaker was Professor Kelly Miller of Howard University who briefly
discussed the Limits of Philanthropy in Negro Education,

endeavoring to show that helpful as has been the program of the
whites to educate the Negroes, their work must be a failure, if it does
not ultimately result in equipping the Negro to take over his own
school systems that the direction, hitherto in the hands of whites,
may be dispensed with.

Professor Robert T. Kerlin of the Virginia Military Institute, having
misunderstood his place on the program appeared at this meeting
and, as one of the persons scheduled to address the session did not
present himself, he was permitted to speak. His discourse was an
extensive discussion of the role played by poetry in the civilization of
a people and how the Negro poet is rendering his race and the
country service in singing of his woes and clamoring for a new
opportunity.

The meeting was closed with an address by Mr. Oswald Garrison
Villard, the Editor of the Nation, discussing the subject, The
Economic Bases of the Race Question. His discourse was a political
and sociological treatise based upon facts of history and economics
to show the hopelessness of a program to right the wrongs of the
Negroes unless that program has its foundation in things economic,
in as much as the present day situation offers no hope that politics
will play any particular part in the solution. All three speakers made a
very favorable impression upon the audience and so enlightened it
by the masterful array of facts presenting their point of view as to
make this one of the most interesting sessions ever held by the
Association.

The first session of the second day consisted of a conference on the
Negro in America. In the absence of Dr. R. E. Park, Dr. C. G.
Woodson spent most of the time discussing the achievements in the
writing of history of the Negro in America, especially in the United
States. He discussed the various motives actuating persons to enter
this field, showing that in most cases these were propagandists and
for that reason a non-partisan and unbiased history of the Negro has
not yet been written. He then discussed the possibility of producing
interesting, comprehensive and valuable works by the proper use of

the various materials. These materials, however, contended he,
would have to be given scientific treatment that the whole truth might
be extracted therefrom. He then showed the possibility of error in
accepting as evidence the opinions of the proslavery element about
the antislavery element, the opinions of the abolitionists about the
colonizationists and vice versa. These will have to be scientifically
examined and after all the actual facts of Negro history must be
determined from such sources as letters, diaries, books of travel,
and unconscious evidence in the current publications of the times.

At the conclusion of the address remarks were made by Mr. A. H.
Grimke, Mr. T. C. Williams, Mr. G. C. Wilkinson, Mr. A. C. Newman,
Professor A. H. Locke, Professor Walter Dyson, and Professor
William L. Hansberry. Professor Hansberry discussed for a few
minutes the value of the sources in African history making his talk
very illuminating and instructive.

The afternoon was devoted to a meeting of the Executive Council to
which the public was not invited but in the evening a large number of
members and friends of the cause attended the session, at the John
Wesley A. M. E. Z. Church. The speakers of the occasion were Mr.
Charles E. Russell of Washington, D. C., and Professor Albert
Bushnell Hart of Harvard University. Mr. Russell discussed the
Negro's Right to Justice taking the record of the Negro as a worthy
one and the fallacy of discrimination against him in the midst of the
struggle for democracy. The address was both illuminating and
convincing. Then followed the address of Professor Hart on Free
Men by Choice. He endeavored to show that no person is actually
free. That all elements of the population and all classes are more or
less restricted. This discussion was both legal and historical,
presenting in its various ramifications the social order in the country
and the legislation underlying the same. He finally brought out the
important fact that although the institution of slavery imprisoned the
body of the Negroes, it could not control their minds.

The Journal
of
Negro History

Vol. VI—April, 1921—No. 2

MAKING WEST VIRGINIA A FREE STATE
The Historic Background

In 1763 the Peace of Paris definitely fixed the boundaries of Virginia,
giving as its western line, the Mississippi River from the Ohio River
to the Lake of Woods.[1] As time and settlement progressed, the
other colonies, growing fearful of Virginia's commanding position,
protested against her retention of this vast territory. Finally, in 1784,
Virginia ceded to the Congress of the Confederation all lands lying
north and west of the Ohio River. She wanted it stipulated, however,
that the territory between the Ohio River and the Allegheny
Mountains comprising what is now West Virginia should remain
forever hers. Although the Congress did not make this stipulation, for
the reason that Virginia was unable to show title; Virginia was,
nevertheless, permitted to retain possession of the said territory.[2]

"The surface of Virginia of that day is divided into two unequally
inclined planes and a centrally located valley. The eastern plane is
subdivided into the Piedmont and the Tidewater; the western into the
Allegheny Highlands, the Cumberland Plateau, and the Ohio Valley
section; the area between was designated the Valley." The eastern
part of the State abounds in rich fertile soil, well adapted to
agriculture, while the western portion, especially the trans-Allegheny
region possesses in large quantities such natural resources as
bituminous coal, building stone, natural gas and petroleum.[3] The
"Valley," a part of the great Appalachian range of valleys, is a
depressed surface, several hundred feet below the top of the Blue
Ridge Mountains on the one side, and the Alleghenies on the other.
It is the dividing line of the two sections of the State then known as
eastern and western Virginia.

The earlier settlements west of the mountains were made by the
more adventurous persons of the east, who had no property or other

ties to attach them to the soil whence they came. At a later date, a
more substantial class, Germans and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians,
made settlements in this western country. They brought few slaves
with them but engaged in agriculture. A new type of people from the
free States to the north and west, next, came to Western Virginia.[4]

Slavery did not become a flourishing institution there, and in the
decades between the years of 1840 and 1860, the demand for slave
labor in the Gulf States caused the bulk of the slave population to go
to that market. The commercial and industrial interests developed
there found their outlets west and north. There was little intercourse
of any kind and practically no commerce with Eastern Virginia. No
railroad connected the west with the east. Burning political
differences manifested themselves, and these, with the lack of
commercial and social intercourse already noted, accentuated strife
between the two sections,[5] as was manifested in every State
constitutional convention held prior to the Civil War.

The Constitutional Convention of 1829 at Richmond was one of the
most important conventions in the history of the Virginia dissension.
The transmontane people, the people of the Valley and some of
those of the Piedmont were arrayed against the aristocratic land
owners of the Tidewater, demanding a greater share in the
government of the Commonwealth. The leading issues before the
convention were: (1) the question of extension of suffrage, (2) a
more equitable basis of representation in the legislature, and (3) the
question of taxation as a minor problem.

The right of suffrage was then conditioned upon the ownership of
land. The law regulating this matter had remained the same since
1776, except that the number of acres of improved land, the
possession of which entitled one to vote, had been reduced from 50
to 25.[6] Thus all those persons who were not attached to land or
who did not possess land in sufficient quantities were denied the
ballot. The west, whose white population, in 1829, was 319,516,
argued and fought for citizen-suffrage, while the east, whose white
population was 362,745 at this time, representing a fifteen per cent

increase since 1790, as compared with one of 150 per cent for the
west, opposed this measure.[7]

The question of the reapportionment of representation was one of
the greatest importance. Here again, just as suffrage was based
upon the ownership of land, representation was based upon
interests. In 1828 the House of Delegates consisted of two hundred
and fourteen members; the Senate of twenty-four." Of these
numbers the transmontane country had but eighty delegates and
nine senators.[8] This section, then proposed that the basis of
apportionment should be the white population. The cismontane
people opposed this, since any change in this direction would tend to
place too much political power in the hands of the westerners.

After a discussion on the white and mixed bases proposals, which
lasted three weeks, the convention finally turned to a consideration
of the various plans of compromise. Mr. Gordon, of Albemarle
County, presented a plan which was finally accepted with slight
modifications. He ignored completely the basis question and
attempted an equitable distribution of representation. "It provided for
a Senate of twenty-four, of which ten would come from the West; and
a House of one hundred and twenty; of which twenty-six would come
from the trans-Allegheny, twenty-four from the Valley, thirty-seven
from the Piedmont and thirty-three from the Tidewater."[9] Incidentally
this plan was quite acceptable to the populous counties of the
Piedmont foothills and the Valley, for it tended to increase their
representation.

As a constitutional basis for future reapportionments of
representation, the following provision was made a part of the
constitution:
"That the General Assembly, after the year of 1841 and at intervals of not less than ten
years, shall have authority, two-thirds of each House concurring, to make re-
apportionments of Delegates and Senators throughout the Commonwealth, so that the
number of Delegates shall not at any time exceed one hundred and fifty, nor of
Senators thirty-six."[10]

The question of taxation was one of some importance. Prior to 1829,
the west had drawn annually for administrative purposes more than it
had contributed to the treasury. Real estate values in the west were
low because of the lack of speculative spirit there, and,
consequently, taxes were not collected in great amounts. The west
now desired (1) greater revenues to construct roads and canals and
to maintain free schools and (2) the power to tax the slave property
of the east. There were at this time east of the Blue Ridge Mountains
397,000 Negro slaves subject to taxation and nearly 50,000 in the
west. The slave property contributed one-third of the revenue of the
State. The east, therefore, determined not to give to the west the
desired power to tax her property.[11]

Although the question of reapportionment of representation, the
question of taxation and the suffrage question were among the
foremost considerations of the Convention, the underlying and basic
cause of all this strife was the slavery issue.[12] Those who
advocated and supported the institution of slavery were loath to
surrender to the people of the west any of the power and privileges
that they possessed. Some of Eastern Virginia and a great majority
of the people in Western Virginia were opposed to slavery. They
believed still in the principles advocated by the fathers of the country
as set by George Mason, who, while deploring the institution, had
formerly said: "Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor
despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the
immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country.
They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master
of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven
on a country. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects,
Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."[13]

A memorial presented to the convention in October in 1829, said that
Virginia was in a state of "moral and political retrogression" and
proceeded to specify:
"That the causes heretofore frequently assigned are the true ones we do not believe....
We humbly suggest our belief that the slavery that exists and which with gigantic
strides is gaining ground among us, is, in truth, the great efficient cause of the
multiplied evils we deplore. We cannot conceive that there is any other cause

sufficiently operative to paralyze the energies of a people so magnanimous, to
neutralize the blessings of Providence included in the gift of a land so happy in its soil,
its climate, its minerals and its waters; and to annul the manifold advantages of our
republican system and geographical position. If Virginia has already fallen from her
high estate, and if we have assigned a true cause for her fall, it is with the utmost
anxiety that we look to the future to the fatal termination of the scene. As we value our
domestic happiness, as our hearts yearn for the prosperity of our offspring, as we pray
for the guardian care of the Almighty over our Country—we earnestly inquire what shall
be done to avert the impending ruin. The efficient cause of our calamities is vigorously
increasing in magnitude and potency, while we wake and while we sleep."[14]

The able men in the convention saw that no permanent agreement
could be reached between the two sections until the basic cause of
the whole conflict had been settled. The power of the big planters,
however, was too great and there was made no constitutional
provision having the purpose to abolish slavery. The Convention of
1829-30, therefore, settled nothing. A compromise was effected on
the question of re-apportionment of representation; a constitutional
provision set forth a program of future apportionments; but the
permanent settlement of this and other important questions was left
for the Convention of 1850.

The Assembly of 1831-32 was the scene of an intense debate on the
issue of slavery. Because of a turn of events, a more definite
cleavage had come between the east and the west. The domestic
slave trade, improved methods of agriculture, internal improvements,
better means of communication, the consequent increase of capital
which helped to restore the impoverished lands and to bring into use
the uncultivated areas of the east, brought about in that section a
marked revival of interest in the economic possibilities of slavery.[15]
The west took a step in the opposite direction.

It must be remembered, however, that there were but few
abolitionists of the extreme type in the western sections of Virginia.
The responsible leaders in this movement against slavery were not
concerned with any moral or religious theories on the subject, but
rather, were acting because of their conviction that slavery was an
economic evil. These men saw that the States to the north and west
of them had outstripped them in the race for material prosperity.
They saw, too, the gradual but unrelenting impoverishment of the

east. They concluded, therefore, that their lack of prosperity was due
to their proximity to the slave-holding section of the State. The belief
became current that the natural resources of the west would attract
capital and population, if the objectional slaves were removed. In
consequence, therefore, they favored a gradual emancipation and
deportation of the slaves.[16]

Numerous petitions, memorials and resolutions found their way to
the Assembly. These may be divided into three classes: (1) those
asking for the removal of free Negroes from the State; (2) those
seeking to amend the Federal Constitution with a view to giving
Congress power to appropriate money with which to purchase slaves
and transport them and the free Negroes from the United States; and
(3) those urging the State to devise some scheme for gradual
emancipation.[17] The first class of petitions came principally from the
large slave-holding sections of the State; the second and third
classes came from those sections of the State in which slaves were
not numerous.

It was evident that this Assembly must take a definite position with
reference to the question of the abolishment of slavery. Accordingly,
therefore, a number of these resolutions concerning slavery were
referred to a select committee composed of twenty-one members,
sixteen of whom were from counties east of the Blue Ridge. After
three days of conference, during which fiery discussions and motions
were rampant in the legislature, the committee reported to the effect
that "it is inexpedient for the present to make any legislative
enactment for the abolition of slavery."[18] Mr. Preston, of
Montgomery, moved immediately to amend the report by substituting
therefor: "It is expedient at this time to adopt some legislative
enactment for the abolition of slavery."[19] The amendment was
defeated by a vote of seventy-three to fifty-eight. Mr. Bryce, of
Goochland County, thereupon, proposed to amend the report of the
select committee, already herein noted, by prefixing the following
preamble: "Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the
condition of the Colored population of the Commonwealth; induced
by humanity as well as policy to an immediate effort for the removal,

in the first place as well as those who are now free as of such as
may hereafter become free, believing that this effort, while it is in just
accordance with the sentiment of the community on the subject, will
absorb all our present means; and that a further action for the
removal of the slaves, should await a more definite development of
public opinion."[20] This preamble was adopted, despite tremendous
opposition of the pro-slavery men.

The discussion of 1832 was followed by a decided reaction against
the proposal for the abolition of slavery. Professor Thomas R. Dew,
of William and Mary College, crystallized the pro-slavery sentiment in
a masterful essay entitled: A Review of the Debates in the Virginia
Legislature of 1831-32. This essay dealt with the theoretical and
practical aspects of slavery in all countries and especially with the
rise and development of Negro slavery in America. It pointed out the
difficulties attendant upon the deportation of the free black and slave
populations, and the danger to society of their emancipation without
deportation. It ridiculed the idea of a successful slave uprising under
the conditions then obtaining, and held that the whole discussion of
so momentous a question by young and inexperienced legislators
was entirely out of order.[21] The forceful argument of Professor Dew
was met by one from Jesse Burton Harrison, whose essay was
entitled: "A Review of the Speech of Thomas Marshall in the Virginia
Assembly of 1831-32." Mr. Harrison's arguments to prove that Negro
slavery in Virginia was an economic evil appeared to be merely a
reiteration of the arguments of Marshall.[22] Former President
Madison also replied briefly to Dew. His essay set forth that Dew had
held too cheaply the presence of Negro slavery and emigration and
ascribed too much importance to the influence of the tariff laws.[23]

By far the most important sectional issue in Virginia during the period
1834 to 1850 was that arising out of a movement for a united slave-
holding South. The Virginia Congressmen had voted as a body
against the "Wilmot Proviso," the abolition of the domestic slave
trade and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In spite
of these facts, leading citizens of Western Virginia were trying to
devise ways and means whereby to rid that portion of the State of

Negro slavery. Dr. Henry Ruffner, Henry McDowell Moore and John
Letcher were prominent among those who proposed a plan whereby
the gradual emancipation of all slaves in the State west of the Blue
Ridge Mountains would be effected. The plan was first debated in
the Franklin Society at Lexington in 1847. Later it appeared as a
pamphlet entitled An Address to the People of West Virginia by a
Slaveholder of West Virginia. This pamphlet proposed to show that
slavery was opposed to the public welfare and that it might be
gradually abolished without results detrimental to the rights and
interests of the slave holders. It contained elaborate comparisons
between the slave-holding States and those not holding slaves, to
the disadvantage of the former, in tending to prove that slavery was
an economic evil.[24]

Dr. Ruffner, later speaking of the movement, said: "No one so far as I
can remember took the abolitionist ground that slave holding was a
sin and ought to be abolished. With us, it was merely a question of
expediency and was argued with special reference to the interests of
West Virginia." Speaking of the reception of the pamphlet in Western
Virginia, he said that the editors in the Valley, doubting the success
of the scheme, hesitated to endorse his efforts; but that west of the
Alleghenies it met with a most encouraging reception.[25]

There began during the two decades from 1830 to 1850 a period of
internal improvements because of a rapid increase in the population
and wealth of Western Virginia. The construction of turnpikes and
local railroads in the trans-Allegheny country and the projection of
other improvements attracted there immigrants, and served also to
interest speculation in its cheap lands and natural resources. English
and eastern capitalists purchased large tracts of land and sold them
in small parcels to settlers who occupied them.[26] Capitalists from
the Middle West and New England States established small
manufactories there, and immigrants coming thither chose between
working therein and becoming farmers or teachers. A considerable
German population was numbered among these immigrants. The
census of 1850 showed an excess of 90,372 white population in the
West over that in the East. The lands in the transmontane country

had risen to a value of only fifteen million dollars less than the cash
value of the lands east of the Blue Ridge.[27]

It is significant that the improvements during this period had tended,
altogether, to connect the commercial interests of Western Virginia
more definitely with those of the Free States to the north and west.
Not a single railroad connected the western part of the State with the
Tidewater. The proceeds of bond issues floated to promote internal
improvements in the State had not been used to effect commercial
ties between the two sections of the State, nor had any considerable
portion thereof been used to improve the western districts. On the
other hand, the interest of the people at the foot hills of the Piedmont
had become more definitely aligned with those of the other eastern
sections of the State. The chief grievance of the former had been
remedied by the compromise convention of 1829-30, which gave
them a larger representation in the House of Delegates. Likewise,
the pursuit of intensive agriculture in the Valley had led to the
introduction of many slaves there, thus tending to create a bond of
interest between this region and the slave-holding east. In the
Constitutional Convention of 1850, therefore, the people of the
transmontane country found themselves arrayed against the three
other sections of the State.[28]

It has been herein noted that the Convention of 1829-30 settled
nothing. A compromise had been effected which relieved somewhat
the tension that existed over the matter of representation. The
constitutional provision that gave to the Assembly the power, after
1841 and thereafter at intervals of not less than ten years, and under
prescribed conditions, to make re-apportionments of representation
had never been availed of. In view of its phenomenal growth in
wealth and population, the west keenly resented this failure to act on
the part of the Assembly of 1841-42.[29] The questions, therefore,
that confronted the Convention of 1829-30 were again brought
forward in 1850.

The Convention of 1850 met at Richmond in October, but shortly
adjourned until January 6, 1851. In February the question of the

basis of representation was taken up. The Committee appointed to
determine the proper basis could reach no agreement; thereupon,
many plans were submitted by delegates from each section of the
State. The western delegates proposed that the House of Delegates
should consist of one hundred and fifty-six members, should be
elected biennially, and that the Senate should consist of fifty
members chosen for four years; both Houses should be elected
upon the suffrage basis; and in 1862 and every ten years thereafter,
a re-apportionment should be made on that basis. The eastern
delegates proposed a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty-
six members and a Senate of thirty-six; both Houses should be
elected on the mixed basis and re-apportionments should be made
on that basis in 1855 and every ten years thereafter.[30]

Neither of these plans was adopted. Consequently various plans of
compromise were brought forward. Botts, of Richmond, and George
W. Summers, of Kanawha, were among those who suggested
propositions. On the motion of Mr. Martin, of Henry County, it was
decided that a committee of eight, four from each section, be elected
by the convention to provide a compromise. On the fifteenth day of
May, this committee reported in favor of a House of Delegates of one
hundred and fifty members; eighty-two from the west and sixty-eight
from the east; and a Senate of fifty; thirty from the east and twenty
from the west. It provided further for a re-apportionment in 1865 and
for submitting both the mixed and suffrage bases to the people
should the Assembly, at that time, fail to agree.[31] The plan was
rejected. Following the failure of several other compromise plans,
Chilton presented with modifications the report of the committee of
eight.[32] This report provided that the numbers therein indicated for
each house remain unchanged; but should the legislature of 1865
fail to re-apportion representation, the governor would be "required
to submit to the vote of the people four propositions, namely; (1) the
suffrage basis, (2) the mixed basis, (3) the white population basis,
and (4) the taxation basis." This plan was carried in committee of the
whole and later, with slight modifications, was adopted by the
Convention.

The question of suffrage was settled amicably since the delegates
from neither section opposed an extension thereof. The privilege of
the ballot, therefore, was extended to "Every white male citizen of
the commonwealth of the age of twenty-one years";[33] paupers and
others usually excepted, not to be included.

The question of taxation was one of the important issues to be
settled. The eastern delegates opposed the white basis of
representation, chiefly through the fear that westerners would use
their newly gained political power to tax slave property to secure
funds for internal improvements.[34] The eastern members insisted,
therefore, that all property taxes should be ad valorem and that no
one species should be taxed higher than another. They were
unwilling, too, that Negro slaves under twelve years of age should be
taxed at all. It was finally provided that an ad valorem tax be placed
on all property according to its value, but that Negro slaves under
twelve years of age be exempt and slaves twelve years and over be
taxed per capita at not more than the tax on land worth three
hundred dollars.[35] The inhabitants of the west never became
reconciled to this discriminating arrangement and it was especially
irritating during the years immediately preceding the war,[36] when
the price of slaves often ranged from sixteen hundred to eighteen
hundred dollars.[37]

In this Convention the men of the west were less bent upon
obtaining a constitutional provision declaring for the gradual
emancipation of slaves than they were in 1829-30. Their efforts were
directed towards shifting the political balance of power from east to
west, whereby this purpose might be accomplished with less
difficulty.[38] In this they were not successful. Likewise the east was
dissatisfied over the apportionment of representation and the west
did not want to accept the principle of taxation.[39] The question of
the extension of suffrage was the only leading issue settled. This
convention, like that of 1829-30, was essentially a compromise
convention; for no permanent settlement of the great problems could
be effected with the State virtually half slave and half free.

The Virginia policy during the period of 1850 to 1861 was influenced
largely by the nation-wide idea that the question of slavery could be
settled only by civil strife. Accordingly the Virginia politicians, and
especially Governor Wise[40] during his term of office, were at great
pains to connect Eastern Virginia in thought and in purpose with the
slave-holding South. This was a period of great internal
improvements in Virginia. The State incurred a bonded debt of thirty-
six million dollars. Many of the loans constituting this debt were used
to promote and facilitate the building of railroads and canals. The
railroads in question, almost without exception, tended to connect
Eastern Virginia socially, industrially and commercially with her
neighbors to the south. On the other hand, the only large railroad of
Western Virginia, the Baltimore and Ohio, was constantly
discriminated against at Richmond[41] and in every session of the
legislature restrictions were aimed at its activities. It is significant that
the hostility to railroad facilities for the Northwest persisted down to
the beginning of the Civil War.[42]

While Western Virginia was denied railroad facilities out of deference
to southern and slave-holding interests, liberal appropriations were
made for the building of turnpike roads in that territory.[43] This
consideration tended to some extent to alleviate the feeling of
dissatisfaction. The fact remained, however, that Western Virginia
had become one in thought and in purpose with the people of
Pennsylvania and Ohio, and she was influenced considerably by her
intercourse with Baltimore. It was to these places that she had easy
access. It followed, therefore, that in 1861 when Eastern Virginia
seceded from the Union and went with the slave-holding States of
the South, the western part of the State had little choice save to
remain loyal to the Union.

Secession and its Results

In 1860 there were in all Virginia 498,887 slaves, of whom 12,771
were in the forty-eight counties originally constituting the State of
West Virginia.[44] With an overwhelming majority of all the slaves in
the State located in the East, the people of this section were,

naturally enough, profoundly interested in the events then occurring
in other pro-slavery commonwealths. Influenced by the secession of
six States from the Union and their subsequent formation of the
Confederate States of America, Governor Letcher issued a
proclamation convening the General Assembly in extra session on
the seventh day of January, 1861.[45]

According to the act of the Assembly, a state convention was
assembled at Richmond on the thirteenth day of February. Forty-
seven of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates present
represented counties now included in the State of West Virginia.[46]
On the sixteenth of April the Convention met in secret session and
the chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations appointed early
in February reported a measure entitled "An Ordinance to Repeal
the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States."[47] The
ordinance recited the reasons for the repeal of the ratification of the
Federal Constitution, dissolved the union between Virginia and the
other States, asserted the complete sovereignty of the State of
Virginia, released her citizens from responsibility to the Federal
Constitution, noted the date upon which and provided the conditions
under which the said ordinance would become effective. It was
adopted the next day by a vote of eighty-eight to fifty-five. Immediate
steps were then taken to form an alliance with the Confederate
States,[48] the same being effected on the twenty-fifth day of April.
Meanwhile some of the delegates from Western Virginia withdrew
from the Convention.

When news of the action taken by the Richmond convention reached
Northwestern Virginia a storm of protest arose. A vast majority of the
citizens of this region were not in accord with the action of the State
in seceding to the Confederacy. They were determined, therefore,
that the part of the State known as the trans-Allegheny region should
be saved to the Union. Resolutions emanating from the meetings
held in the several counties joined with the press to denounce the
action taken by the aforesaid convention. The Clarksburg[49]
meeting, assembled for this purpose on the twenty-second of April,
sounded the call for united action and proposed that a convention

composed of the twenty-seven counties of Western Virginia should
assemble at Wheeling on the thirteenth of May.

The May Convention assembled at the time and place indicated and
proceeded straightway to the business of the hour. The permanent
President, John W. Moss, of Wood county, outlined the purpose of
the Convention.[50] His remarks were followed by a resolution of Mr.
Tarr, of Brooke County, to the effect that "a Committee, to be known
as the Committee on Federal and State Relations and to comprise
one member from each County, be appointed by the President to
consider all resolutions of the body looking to action by the
Convention."[51] Significant among the numerous resolutions
presented was one by John S. Carlile calling for a new Virginia,[52]
but the sense of the Convention was that such action was
premature.

Out of the maze of resolutions offered, the committee finally made its
report. Among other provisions, the report recommended that in the
event of the ratification, by vote, of the Ordinance of Secession, the
counties there represented and all others disposed to co-operate
with them, should appoint delegates on the fourth day of June to
meet in general convention on the eleventh day of June at such
place as thereinafter provided, with a view to devising such
measures and taking such action as the people they represent might
demand.[53] It was further recommended that a central committee be
appointed to attend to all matters connected with the objects of the
convention, to assemble it at their discretion and to prepare an
address to the people of Virginia in conformity with the resolution
there made.[54]

The passage, on the twenty-third day of May, of the Ordinance of
Secession, necessitated the meeting of the second convention. It
assembled on the eleventh of June at Wheeling. Upon the effecting
of a permanent organization, Mr. Dorsey, of Monongalia, offered a
resolution to the effect that immediate steps be taken to form a new
State from the counties represented.[55] Mr. Carlile endeavored to
show a lack of wisdom in such a course, saying: "Let us organize a

legislature, swearing allegiance to the Federal Government, and let
that legislature be recognized by the government of the United
States as the legislature of the State of Virginia."[56] He urged that
under that condition they would be under the protecting care of the
Federal Government and would be in position to effect a
constitutional separation from Virginia. His judgment prevailed.

The important acts of this Convention were: (1) the Declaration of
Rights of the People of Virginia and its adoption;[57] (2) the adoption
of an Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State[58] and (3) the
election of State Officers.[59] The Convention then adjourned.

On the sixth of August, the adjourned Convention reassembled, as
provided, at Wheeling. The principal work of this convention was the
adoption of an ordinance to provide for the formation of a new State
out of a portion of the State of Virginia.[60] It provided also for an
election to be held on the twenty-fourth of October (1) to ratify the
ordinance there adopted and (2) to select delegates to a convention
to frame a constitution for the new State, in case a majority of the
voters should decide in favor of formation. The vote at this election
was 18,408 for ratification and 481 for rejection. Accordingly, upon
certification of the same to the governor, he issued his proclamation,
calling the delegates elected to a constitutional convention to meet in
Wheeling on the twenty-sixth of November.[61]

The Constitutional Convention met at the scheduled time in the
United States Court room at Wheeling.[62] Thirty-four delegates of
the forty chosen were present. No time was lost in effecting a
permanent organization of the Convention, in order that the
momentous problems to be solved might be brought before that
august body. Not the least important one of these questions was that
of the disposal of slavery. The questions of the hour were these: Was
the new State to be a free or a slave State? Would the Union admit
another slave State?

It was on the fourteenth day of the Convention that Robert Hagar, a
Methodist preacher from Boone county, offered a resolution to the
effect that the convention inquire into the propriety of making the

new State free, by incorporating into the Constitution a clause for
gradual emancipation.[63] A counter proposal was offered on the
same day by Mr. Brown, an ardent pro-slavery advocate, from
Kanawha. His resolution asserted that it was "unwise and impolitic to
introduce the question of slavery into the Convention."[64] Despite the
fact that the organic law of the new State was then being framed,
this pro-slavery champion deplored any attempt of the body to
discuss or decide upon the question of slavery, the most vital
question of economic policy with which the people would be
concerned. There were present, however, other men who were
determined to champion the cause of freedom.

On the sixteenth day of the convention the courageous Mr. Gordon
Battelle, a delegate from Ohio county, offered for reference the
following proposition:[65]
(1) "No slave shall be brought into the State for permanent residence after the adoption
of this constitution.

(2) "The legislature shall have full power to make such just and humane provisions as
may be needful for the better regulation and security of the marriage and family
relations between slaves, for their proper instruction, and for the gradual and equitable
removal of slaves from the State.

(3) "On and after the fourth day of July 18—, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for
crime, shall cease within the limits of this State."

On the twenty-seventh day of January, Mr. Battelle offered the
following:[66]
(1) "No slave shall be brought into the state for permanent residence after the adoption
of this constitution.

(2) "All children born of slave parents in this state on and after the fourth day of July
1865 shall be free; and the Legislature may provide by general law for the
apprenticeship of such children during their minority and for their subsequent
colonization."

It is obvious that the first set of propositions provided for the total
abolition of slavery, the date undetermined; whereas the second,
while providing for the freedom of the children, born of slave parents
on and after a specified date, condemned to perpetual slavery all
other persons who prior to that date were slaves.

In line with the proposals of Mr. Battelle was the pertinent and clear-
sighted editorial of The Wheeling Intelligencer under date of
December ninth, 1861. It said: "We have endeavored to show how
entirely adverse to the best interests of Western Virginia it would be
for the present convention to adjourn without first engrafting a free
State provision on our constitution in shape of a three, five or ten
years emancipation clause. We should esteem it far better that the
Convention had never assembled than that it should omit to take
action of this character.... Congress would hesitate long before it will
consent to the subdivision of a slave State simply that two slave
States may be made out of it. The evil which has so nearly destroyed
not only Western Virginia, but the whole country, will find that its tug-
of-war is yet to come, when it has run the gauntlet of our Convention
and our Legislature. We believe that when it reaches Congress, it
will reach its hitherto and that it will never pass. It will avail very little
for this convention to remain in debate on this subject for a month at
a heavy expense and consummate a work which will only last end in
a defeat and entail upon its framers the cold distrust of the only
friends they have in the world. The loyal masses of the free States
who are fighting the great battle of Constitutional freedom, who are
endeavoring to stay the absorbing and consuming demands of
slavery upon this continent, will never consent that in the very midst
of them it shall burst out, in a new place, with the extraordinary
demands that its present representation of a state in their Senate
shall be doubled.... We say then to the members of our convention
that before you waste your time and money on a constitution you
look to its probable fate."[67]

That this prophetic message from the Intelligencer reflected the
opinion of the people of Western Virginia and the state of mind of the
Congress, was clearly shown by subsequent events. On the
nineteenth day of the Convention an adroit attempt was made to
have West Virginia become a slave State.[68] Thomas Harrison, of
Harrison county, offered a resolution providing that the making of a
new constitution be dispensed with for the present, and that the
Virginia Constitution be referred to a Committee of Five with
instructions to modify it to suit the needs of the proposed new State.

Significant among the provisions of the Virginia Constitution was one
altered at the Richmond Secession Convention to the effect that the
General Assembly should have power to prohibit the future
emancipation of slaves. By its provisions, therefore, the slave could
never become free during his residence in the State. On motion of
Mr. Van Winkle, the Convention voted that action on the resolution
be indefinitely postponed.[69]

Battelle, persistent in his efforts to make some provision in reference
to the freedom of the slaves, decided to submit emancipation to the
people. Accordingly, therefore, on the twelfth of February, 1862, he
offered the following:[70]
(1) "Resolved. That at the same time when this Constitution is submitted to the qualified
voters of the proposed new state to be voted for or against, an additional section to
article——, in the words following: 'No slave shall be brought or free person of color
come into this state for permanent residence after this constitution goes into operation,
and all children, born of slave mothers after the year 1870 shall be free, the males at
the age of twenty-eight years, and the females at the age of eighteen years; and the
children of such females shall be free at birth'. Shall be separately submitted to the
qualified voters of the proposed new state for their adoption or rejection, and if the
majority of the votes cast for and against said additional section are in favor of its
adoption, it shall be made a part of article—of this constitution and not otherwise."

(2) "Resolved that the committee on schedule be and they are hereby instructed to
report the necessary provisions for carrying the foregoing resolution into effect."

Mr. Sinsel moved that the resolutions be made the order of the next
morning at ten o'clock; Mr. Hall, of Marion county, moved to amend
the motion to the effect that it be laid on the table. Mr. Battelle
deplored the application of the gag rule. The question not being a
debatable one, the vote was taken. By a majority of one vote of the
forty-seven cast, the resolutions were indefinitely laid on the table.[71]

On the thirteenth day of February, after the disposition of other
important business, Mr. Pomeroy, of Hancock county, suggested that
the questions raised by the resolutions offered the day before by Mr.
Battelle might be compromised, either by adopting one of the
propositions already presented, or by referring the whole matter to a
representative committee of conference. Many members of the
convention shared the views of Mr. Pomeroy and so stated their

convictions to the body. Indeed they favored the settlement of the
question then and there, without reference to a committee. Mr. Hall,
of Marion, was of the opinion that its reference to a committee might
carry abroad the idea that a division existed there; that that which
was done, was accomplished only through a committee of
compromise. Mr. Hervey was convinced that the new State must be
a free State and therefore desired to vote the proposition as it stood,
without the committee. Mr. Dille was of the opinion that there would
be no objection to a constitutional provision forbidding the entrance
into the State for permanent residence, of free Negroes or slaves,
after the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Brown, of Kanawha,
sustained the view of Mr. Dille. Mr. Pomeroy made a motion to the
effect that the first clause of Mr. Battelle's resolution be acted upon
by the body. Mr. Battelle favored the reference of the question to a
committee, thus opposing a vote that morning because he had
assured a colleague of the opposite side that the question would not
be brought up that morning and he wanted that all the proponents
and opponents of the measure be present at the taking of the vote.

Mr. Stewart, of Doddridge, the gentleman to whom Mr. Battelle
referred, having just entered, stated that he understood the motion
before the House to be a compromise measure that would settle the
question. Thereupon, Mr. Battelle served notice that while he would
support the pending motion, he had entered into no compromise. It
was his plan, therefore, to prosecute the case before the public
forum. The question was put and it was agreed with one dissenting
vote that there should be incorporated into the Constitution the first
clause of Mr. Battelle's resolution; namely: "No slave shall be
brought or free person of color come into this State for permanent
residence after this constitution goes into effect."[72]

On the third day of April the vote on the question of the adoption of
the constitution was taken; 18,862 votes were cast for adoption and
514 for rejection. A significant incident to the general election was
the informal vote taken, at the suggestion of The Wheeling
Intelligencer, on Mr. Battelle's emancipation proposition which had
been rejected by the Convention. Despite the irregular and

unauthorized manner in which this was done, by the several counties
holding such extra election, the count showed that six thousand
votes were cast for emancipation and six hundred against.[73] It is
not improbable, therefore, that the constitution would have been
adopted without difficulty had the emancipation clause been
included. The politicians and not the people were on the wrong side
of the issue.

Pursuant to the call of the Governor, the general assembly met in its
second extra session on the sixth of May.[74] On the thirteenth day of
the same month it passed "An Act giving the assent of the
Legislature of Virginia to the Formation of and Erection of a New
State within the jurisdiction of this State."[75] Everything was now in
readiness for the presentation of documents and credentials to
Congress, by the proposed new State, in support of its application
for admission into the Union.

Prior to this Mr. Battelle, in pursuance of his earnest efforts to make
the proposed new State free, had prepared a masterly address on
the subject of the emancipation of the slaves, to be delivered in
convention to his colleagues. The sense of the convention was such
that the courageous gentleman was unable to engage its attention
for that purpose. Accordingly, therefore, he had printed in pamphlet
form the address that he intended to deliver, and distributed it
throughout the counties of Northwestern Virginia. Among the salient
points therein set forth the following are noteworthy: first, that since
the institution of slavery as it existed within the bounds of Western
Virginia was the mere creature of law, the law was competent to
remove it; and that, therefore, it was fairly and properly a subject for
the consideration of those in convention assembled; second, that the
gradual emancipation of the slaves was both fundamental and vital
to the success of the new State, and in consequence thereof the
question should be settled in the organic law. Mr. Battelle discussed
the question from two points of view, that of principle, and that of
expediency. It was developed that the principle of slavery was wrong
and that the system, therefore, should be abolished. "While
discrimination must be made between the system and the acts of

individuals, the former," he said, "is always bad, is always
inconsistent with the obvious requirements of either justice or
morals."[76]

Considering the proposition in the light of expediency, the question
was asked: "What do the best interests of the people of West
Virginia require from the persons assembled to frame the organic
law?" In reply thereto there was developed the theme that labor was
fundamental to the material prosperity of the commonwealth; that
slave labor and free had always been and would doubtless always
be unharmonious and inconsistent in purpose. Since slave labor, it
was pointed out, was competent to perform only the crudest work
and most menial tasks, it followed that free labor was indispensable
to the material progress of the new State. "Slave labor," Battelle said,
"drove out free labor and tended to make all labor undignified and
despised. It should, therefore, be dispensed with." In reply to the
assertion that since the system was destined to die a quick and
certain death no action on the part of the State was necessary, Mr.
Battelle urged that "if that be true, it furnished an additional reason
for the incorporation into the constitution of a provision terminating
slavery." "Such action would be but just to all parties—to both the
proponents and the opponents of the present system." The argument
closed with an exposition, first, on slavery as the fundamental cause
of the then current distress in Virginia and in the nation; and second,
on the propriety of such an act at that particular time. This argument
doubtless had an unexpected effect in preparing the minds of the
people of the State for the acceptance of the plan of gradual
emancipation, the condition on which West Virginia was finally
admitted.[77]

Slavery and the Admission of West Virginia

Waitman T. Willey, a member of the Senate from Virginia, having
obtained the permission of that body to do so, presented on May
29th a certified original of the constitution together with a copy of an
Act of the General Assembly of Virginia, of May 13, 1862, under the
Restored Government, giving its permission for the formation of a

new State within the commonwealth of Virginia. He presented at the
same time the memorial of the General Assembly requesting
Congress to admit the State of West Virginia into the Union.
Following the receipt of these documents they were referred to the
Committee on Territories, of which B. F. Wade, of Ohio, was the
Chairman.[78]

On the twenty-third of June Senate Bill No. 365 providing for "the
admission of the State of West Virginia into the Union" was reported,
read and passed to a second reading.[79] On the twenty-sixth day of
June, on motion of Mr. Wade, the bill was taken up for immediate
consideration in a committee of the whole. The bill proposed to admit
West Virginia into the Union on equal footing with the original States
in all respects whatever, subject, among other conditions, to the
following: "That the convention thereinafter provided for shall in the
constitution to be framed by it, make provision that from and after the
fourth day of July, 1863, the children of all slaves born within the
limits of the said State shall be free."[80]

Following the action noted, Mr. Sumner, Senator from
Massachusetts, quoted that provision of the bill relating to the
emancipation of slaves and raised the following objections, namely:
(1) that by the passage of the bill a new slave State would be
admitted into the Union and (2) that the existing generation of slaves
would remain such throughout the course of their lives. He was
unalterably opposed to the measure so long as it contained these
features; and he, therefore, sought to remove them by means of the
same policy that Jefferson applied to the territories of the Northwest.
Accordingly, he offered an amendment to the effect "that the
convention hereinafter provided for, in the Constitution to be framed
by it, make provision that from and after the fourth day of July, 1863,
within the limits of said State, there shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishment of crime,
whereof the party shall be duly convicted."[81] A vote on the
amendment was requested and ordered but not then taken.

Dissatisfied with the purport of the proposed amendment, Senator
Willey expressed his intention to amend the same; whereupon the
presiding officer of the Senate proposed that he offer an amendment
to the bill rather than to the proposed amendment of Senator
Sumner. In the meanwhile, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, a member
of the committee that framed the bill, affirmed his intention to sustain
it. His remarks were suspended by order of the chair for the purpose
of considering another matter which had priority to the one then
being discussed.

On the motion of Senator Willey the bill was again considered on the
first day of July, the question pending being the amendment of Mr.
Sumner.[82] In support thereof, Mr. Sumner asserted that from
statistics of Mr. Willey it appeared that twelve thousand bondsmen in
Western Virginia were doomed to continue as such for the remainder
of their lives, and that consequently the Senate must, for a
generation, be afflicted with two additional slave-holding members.
He quoted from Webster's speech of December 22, 1845, on the
admission of Texas into the Union and rested his case on its
arguments. Briefly stated, Mr. Webster opposed the admission of
other States into the Union as slave States, and at the same time
granting to them the inequalities arising from the mode of
apportioning representation to Congress, as granted by the
Constitution to the original slave-holding States. He held that the free
States have the right to demand the abolition of slavery by a
commonwealth seeking admission with a slave-holding constitution.
[83]

During the continuation of the debate, Mr. Hale asserted that Mr.
Webster abandoned the position just attributed to him when in 1850
he voted against any restrictions upon any territory coming into the
Union with a slave-holding constitution and when he voted
exclusively against applying the "Wilmot Proviso" to these States.
Mr. Hale added tersely that since Congress had consistently
admitted States with slave-holding constitutions providing for
perpetual slavery, it would be the merest folly to refuse to admit the
first State whose constitution provided for gradual emancipation.[84]

A new issue was injected into the debate when Mr. Collamer, of
Vermont, while reviewing what is implied in being a sovereign State
and a State in the Union, argued that the imposition by Congress of
any condition precedent to the entrance, whether or not that
condition be the abolition of slavery, is an unwarranted interference
with the internal affairs of that State. Under such circumstances the
proposed new State would not come into the Union on equal footing
with other States. He did not wish, however, to be understood as
saying that he would not vote against a State desiring to come in as
a perpetual slave-holding State; but he failed to see the wisdom or
justice in making the abolition of slavery a condition precedent to
entrance. On the other hand, he saw no difference, in principle,
between the provision in the bill as reported and the amendment
offered by Mr. Sumner, since both of them failed to reflect the will of
the Convention that framed the State's constitution.[85]

Thereupon Mr. Willey announced that he would offer the following
amendment: "That after the fourth day of July, 1863, the children
born of slave mothers within the limits of the said State shall be free,
and that no law shall be passed by the said State by which any
citizen of either of the States of this Union shall be excluded from the
enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is
entitled under the Constitution of the United States; provided that the
convention that ordained the constitution aforesaid, to be
reconvened in the manner prescribed in the schedule thereto
annexed, shall by a solemn public ordinance declare the assent of
the said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit
to the President of the United States on or before the 15th of
November, 1862, an authentic copy of the said ordinance; upon
receipt whereof the President by proclamation shall announce the
fact; whereupon and without any further procedure on the part of
Congress the admission of the said State into the Union shall be
considered as complete."[86]

Throughout the debate that followed there were found many
supporters of the program of gradual emancipation for the proposed
new State. Chairman Wade, of the Committee of Territories, made

thereupon the following important remarks: (1) that the proposed
new State had voluntarily fixed the marks of extermination of the
institution of slavery; (2) that the principal men of the commonwealth
had told him that the first legislature to convene would do away with
the whole institution, as fast as the nature of the case would permit;
(3) that he believed the efforts of West Virginia were constitutional;
(4) that it was just and expedient to admit her; (5) that he did not
favor the inclusion in the commonwealth of the pro-slavery counties
of the Valley; (6) that he did not want a provision saying that a
person born one day should be a slave forever, and that one born
the next day should be free; and finally (7) that he would like to see
an amendment, providing that "all children who, at the time this
constitution takes effect, are fifteen or sixteen years of age, shall be
free upon arriving at the age of twenty-one or thirty-five years," i.e., a
provision for gradual emancipation that will enable some of those
born before as well as all of those born July fourth, 1863, to obtain
their freedom.[87]

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, prefacing his remarks with the statement
that he had not examined the question, proceeded to make the
following observations: (1) that he wished to be assured that the
State could be admitted constitutionally; (2) that considering the
position of the State, the feeling of the people about the matter, the
small number of slaves there at the present time, he believed it not
only the duty, but the entire right of the body (Congress) to prescribe
before the State comes in that she shall put herself in a proper and
irreversible position on the subject of the gradual abolition of slavery;
(3) that when a definite and fixed date is given for the termination of
slavery, the State becomes in point of fact a free State; (4) that he
was glad to know (according to Mr. Wade) that the people of West
Virginia concurred in opinion with the principles sponsored by
himself; and (5) that the interests of the State itself and those of all of
the States in the Union demanded an irreversible agreement on the
whole matter.[88] Further consideration of the bill was then
postponed.

Shortly after an unsuccessful attempt on the part of Mr. Willey to
have the consideration of the bill continue,[89] it was brought up
again on the fourteenth of July by Senator Wade. The pending
question was the amendment of Mr. Sumner. The vote was taken
and the amendment was rejected.[90] Mr. Willey then offered the
amendment already herein noted. He was followed by Mr. Wade,
who, expecting the State to be admitted, if at all, under the
amendment of Mr. Willey, moved to amend the amendment by
inserting at the proper place the words: "And that all slaves within
the State who shall at the aforesaid time be under twenty-one years,
shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years."[91]
Despite the anti-slavery principle here involved, Mr. Wade was
convinced that some provision was necessary to facilitate the
running of the bill in the Senate and in the House. He thought, too,
that the harshness and abruptness of the bill would be thereby
smoothed down, softened and rendered harmonious.[92]

It was no easy task, however, that the Senator from Ohio had
essayed to accomplish. His proposal brought from Mr. Willey the
personal conviction of the man. Mr. Willey preferred that the State be
admitted under the constitution precisely as submitted by the people.
That not being possible, he wished that his amendment (which was
not to his personal tastes) be carried. He deplored the situation that
would follow should the amendment of Mr. Wade be passed. He
pointed out: (1) that the majority of slaves were in counties
contiguous to what would be the borders of the old State of Virginia;
(2) that many of them ranged in age from one to twenty-one years;
(3) that when they should arrive at a convenient age for sale, they
would be silently transferred across the border into Kentucky or
Virginia or the further South, if needs be, and there sold into the
cotton fields of the South or the tobacco plantations of the East,
where slavery was admittedly at its worst; (4) that many of the slaves
were females, the offspring of whom would be free, were the
mothers allowed to remain in the State, but upon the passage of the
amendment even those would be doomed to the perpetual slavery of
the far South. Replying to an inquiry made by Mr. Lane, of Kansas,
as to whether or not public sentiment would condone such action, he

asked if public sentiment would be likely to influence those slave
owners who lived in territory contiguous to Virginia. The loyalty and
fidelity of West Virginia should, in Mr. Willey's opinion, guarantee the
safe manner in which the commonwealth would handle the question.
Never before in similar situations, he argued, had slaves in esse
been freed; freedom extended only to those unborn at the passage
of the constitution or to those born on or after a date therein
designated.[93]

Again joining issue with Senator Willey, Mr. Lane pointed out that the
same situation arose in Kansas when in February, 1856, the people
adopted a constitution providing for the emancipation of the slaves
on the fourth of the following July. The slaves, however, handled the
situation. They told their masters that since they should become free
after the date designated, they would not permit themselves to be
taken out of the State prior to that date.[94] Mr. Lane did not doubt the
capacity to do likewise on the part of the slaves then being
considered.

An interesting spectacle presented itself when the two Senators from
Virginia engaged in spirited debate. Mr. Carlile desired that the State
be admitted under the terms of the constitution framed at Wheeling,
the alternative being that the people of the State should have the
new terms submitted to them for approval. He believed that Mr.
Willey's amendment was incomplete as it stood, and that an
amendment in conformity with the one presented by Mr. Wade was
necessary, providing, of course, that it was the sense of the Senate
to admit the State only upon conditions. He took issue with Mr.
Willey's assertion that the passage of Mr. Wade's amendment would
be followed by a wholesale delivery of slaves to purchasers further
South.[95] In the meanwhile Mr. Wade's amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Carlile now began overtly his campaign of obstruction and
opposition to the admission of the State into the Union. He offered as
an amendment to that of his colleague to be inserted at the end of
the sixteenth line, the following words: "After the said ordinance shall
be submitted to the vote of the people in the said State of West

Virginia and be ratified by the vote of the majority of the people
thereof." The sinister motive underlying his proposal was clearly
perceived and ably met by Mr. Willey. He opposed the measure: first,
because of the unusual requirement of the majority vote of the
people, and, second, because of the new convention that would be
required to assent to the fundamental proposition, and the
consequent new election and additional costs to the people. The
constitutional convention, he argued, was still in existence, was still a
legal body, and that, therefore, there was no sufficient reason for the
reference of the matter beyond the jurisdiction thereof.[96]

Dissatisfied but not discouraged, Mr. Carlile explained away the
objection to the words "majority of the people." He maintained,
however, that the changes contemplated would affect the
fundamental law and that they should, therefore, be ratified by the
people subsequent to being assented to by the Convention. It was,
he argued, a departure from and in derogation of the customs and
ideas of Virginia to change the organic law without first submitting
the proposed new law to the people. Setting forth more clearly his
position on the whole matter Carlile said: "Supposing—as I suppose,
I will see when I move this test amendment, which I shall, to this
proposition—that the Senate is unwilling to admit us without
conditions, I shall vote against any bill, if it is pressed, exacting
conditions, for the purpose of going home to my people asking them
to assemble a Convention between this and the first Monday in
December, and act upon the suggestion which we have received
here from the Senate, if they desire to do so and come here with a
constitution that will enable Congress, without such arbitrary stretch
of power to admit us at once without delay."[97]

It was evident that Carlile was committed to a proslavery program
and that his plan, if adopted, would result in the indefinite
postponement of the admission of the new State. His colleague,
therefore, with an apparently sincere effort to meet the wishes of the
Senate and to satisfy the objections of Mr. Carlile, read the bill which
was presented in the House by Mr. Brown, of Virginia. At the same
time he announced that that bill, if agreeable to the Committee and

to his colleagues, would be acceptable to him as a compromise.[98]
This assented to, Mr. Willey withdrew his original amendment and
offered the Brown bill as a substitute for the whole bill, striking out all
after the word "whereas" in the preamble and substituting this
measure in lieu of the Committee's bill.[99] The bill as finally
presented follows:

"Section 1. That the State of West Virginia be and is hereby declared
to be one of the United States of America, and admitted into the
Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects,
whatever, and until the next general census shall be entitled to three
members in the House of Representatives of the United States:
Provided always that this act shall not take effect until after the
proclamation of the President of the United States hereinafter
provided for.

"Section 2. It being represented to Congress that since the
Convention of the 26th of November, 1861, that framed and
proposed the Constitution, for the said State of West Virginia, the
people thereof have expressed a wish to change the seventh section
of the eleventh article of the said Constitution by striking out the
same and inserting the following in its place, namely, 'The children of
slaves born within the limits of this State after the fourth day of July,
1863, shall be free, and no slave shall be permitted to come into the
State for permanent residence therein.' Therefore be it enacted, that
whenever the people of West Virginia shall, through their said
convention, and by a vote to be taken at an election to be held within
the limits of the State at such time as the Convention may provide,
make and ratify the change aforesaid and properly certify the same
under the hand of the President of the Convention, it shall be lawful
for the President of the United States to issue the proclamation
stating the fact and thereupon this act shall take effect and be in
force from and after sixty days from the date of said proclamation."
[100]

It will be observed that the terms of the amendment made no
provision for the subsequent freedom of those slaves in esse. It was

the sense of the committee of the whole, expressed in its action on
Mr. Wade's amendment, that a specified class of slaves in esse
should be given their freedom upon their arrival at a designated age.
In conformity with this view, Mr. Lane, of Kansas moved to amend
the second section by inserting after the word free the following:
"And that all slaves within the State who shall at the time aforesaid
be under ten years of age shall become free when they arrive at the
age of twenty-one years, and all slaves over ten years and under
twenty-one years of age, shall become free when they arrive at the
age of twenty-five years."[101] This amendment was accepted.

After the passage of the above amendment, Mr. Carlile, persistent in
his policy of opposing admission, proposed to amend Mr. Willey's
last proposition. His amendment was to the effect that the proposed
new State be admitted without conditions. In speaking thereupon,
Mr. Willey affirmed that this amendment conformed to his personal
views, but that as a matter of good faith and honor he was precluded
from espousing its cause.[102] The amendment was rejected.

Following the report of the bill to the Senate and the concurrence of
the latter in the compromise amendment of Mr. Willey as amended
by Mr. Lane, Mr. Sumner advised that he had proposed to offer to
the Senate his amendment lately rejected in Committee. Referring to
this proposal, Mr. Lane asserted his assurance that the insertion of
the provision in question would cause the bill to fail before the House
of Representatives and to merit the disapproval of the people of
West Virginia. He urged, therefore, that it would be the better policy
to vote for the bill as already amended and to endure slavery in the
State for another generation, if need be. Despite the conformity of
this view with those of a majority of his colleagues, Mr. Sumner,
though declining to offer the amendment, stated his irrevocable
opposition to the admission of another slave State, even though the
term of slavery be for but twenty-one years. He considered it his
duty, therefore, to vote against the measure as it then stood.[103]

The engrossment of the bill for a third reading found its opponents
still unweary in their efforts to obstruct or defeat its passage. Senator

Trumbull, of Illinois, summed up his opposition to the bill in two
objections, namely: (1) since all persons over twenty-one years of
age were thereby doomed to perpetual slavery, the new State would
be in theory and in practice a slave State; and (2) he failed to see the
necessity for or wisdom in dividing any of the old States until the
situation could be seen as a whole. He let it be known, however, that
this statement should not be construed to commit him to the position
of opposing the admission of a slave State under all circumstances
whatever. In conformity with his conviction, he moved that all
consideration of the bill be postponed until the first Monday of
December next. The Senator from Illinois was ably supported by Mr.
Carlile, who, failing in his last attempt to amend the bill to the effect
that the State should come in without conditions, affirmed his
opposition to any proceedings whereby the organic law of a State is
framed by Congress and asserted that he would support the
Trumbull motion at the risk of misconstruction.[104]

Those Senators who favored the immediate passage of the bill were
not unprepared for the most determined attacks of its opponents. Mr.
Howard, of Michigan, requested of the Senators from Virginia,
whether the Wheeling Legislature had taken any action on the "Joint
Resolution passed by Congress suggesting that the so-called border
slave States take some action in reference to the final emancipation
of their slaves." Replying thereto, Mr. Willey asserted that the
Legislature was entirely favorable to a program involving final
emancipation. He took occasion, moreover, to add that "his
colleague, Mr. Carlile, was misrepresenting the attitude of the
legislature that sent him there in interposing the objection that was
calculated to thwart the whole movement."[105]

Agreeing with the remarks of Mr. Willey, Mr. Wade, while opposing
the motion of Senator Trumbull, explained that Mr. Carlile had
penned all the bills and drawn them up; that he was the hardest
worker and the most cheerful of them all, that he was the most
forceful among them in pressing his views upon the Committee.
"Whence," asked he, "came this change of heart? For indeed his
conversion was greater than that of St. Paul." "Now," said Mr. Wade,

"is the time for West Virginia to be admitted into the Union." "Let us
not postpone the action for the next session, but let us reject the
motion of the gentleman from Illinois and pass the bill."[106]

Continuing the debate, Mr. Ten Eyck affirmed the legality and the
expediency of admitting the new State. His arguments were
substantially as follows: (1) that the legal question, that is, the right of
the legislature to give assent to the division of the State, was settled
when the Senate accepted as members the two men appointed by
the said legislature; (2) as a matter of policy he urged that the people
of Western Virginia should not be forced to run the risk of having the
whole State, because of the collapse of the rebellion, repeal the act
of the legislature and thereby continue a domination of tyranny over
them. The vote was taken and the motion to postpone was rejected.
[107]

The final objection prior to the passage of the bill, came from Mr.
Powell, of Kentucky. Asserting, in substance, that since ten of the
forty-eight counties to be included in West Virginia were
unrepresented in the Convention and in the Legislature, and since
less than one-fourth of the people gave their consent to the
formation of a new State, he held that there was no constitutional
right to act. He was, therefore, unalterably opposed to the admission
of the new State. Unswerved from his position, by the assurances of
Mr. Willey, that (1) the absence of ten thousand men under arms,
and (2) the foregone conclusion that separation would be effected
jointly accounted for the small number of nearly nineteen thousand
votes, Mr. Powell called for the yeas and nays. The motion was put
and the bill to admit was passed.[108]

Even the passage of the bill did not cause Mr. Carlile's opposition to
cease. Determined in his efforts to make a final plea for the slave-
holding interests, he introduced Senate Bill No. 531[109]
supplemental to the act for the admission of West Virginia into the
Union and for other purposes. This bill sought, of course, to make
effective his plan that the whole work of the Constitutional
Convention be reenacted. The bill was reported with amendments

and adversely from the Judiciary Committee, whereupon Mr. Carlile
sought to have it considered in the Senate. This effort, like his
previous ones, was wholly unsuccessful.[110]

While this battle was in progress in the Senate the House also was
considering the question. The debate in the Senate on the admission
of the proposed new State of West Virginia into the Union hinged
largely upon the consideration of the question of slavery. Was the
new State to be admitted as a slave State, providing for gradual
emancipation? Was it to be admitted on a program of immediate
emancipation, or was it to come in with no conditions relating to the
disposition of this all-absorbing matter? These were the questions to
be determined. They were not altogether the chief considerations in
the House.

On the twenty-fifth day of June, 1862, Mr. Brown, of Virginia, by
unanimous consent, introduced before the House a bill for the
"Admission of West Virginia into the Union and for other purposes."
After the first and second readings it was referred to the Committee
on Territories.[111] On the sixteenth of July the bill as passed by the
Senate was read a first and second time. Mr. Bingham demanded
previous question on the passage of the bill; whereupon Mr. Segar,
representing a district in Eastern Virginia, objected to a third reading
and moved that the bill be laid on the table. On a call for the vote the
motion was defeated. On the motion of Roscoe Conkling the
consideration of the bill was postponed until the second Tuesday in
December, 1862.[112]

The bill came up again for consideration in the House at the time
designated, December 9, 1862. Mr. Conway, of Kansas, obtaining
the floor through the courtesy of Mr. Bingham, remarked that he had
no objection to the erection of a new State in Western Virginia; that
he understood that the inhabitants were thoroughly loyal; that they
were opposed to slavery; and that they would make a powerful and
prosperous State. Despite these considerations, he was not
prepared to adhere to the program of admission. He objected,
therefore, that the application had not come up in the proper

constitutional form. The commonwealth was not organized into a
territorial form of government, and so, said he, no enabling act could
be passed. The constitutional provision that no State may be divided
without the assent of the legislature thereof was not, in his opinion,
adhered to. He questioned the legitimacy of the so-called "Restored
Government of Virginia" after a part of the State had seceded from
the Union.[113] It was his contention that the failure of the State
government caused the sovereignty of the State to accrue to the
Federal Government. Any application for admission into the Union,
on the part of West Virginia, should proceed on this theory.[114]

Replying to these arguments, Mr. Brown, of Virginia, claimed
constitutional regularity of procedure in forming the new State and in
seeking to have it admitted into the Union. He referred to the case of
Kentucky as a precedent, attempting thereby to show the
competency of Congress to admit a State formed within the
jurisdiction of another. He pointed out that the Senate, the House,
the Executive Department of the United States Government and a
State Court in Ohio had, all, by their several acts and relationships
with the Wheeling Legislature recognized it to be the legal legislature
of Virginia. Discussing the original powers of the people, Mr. Brown
asserted "that the principle was laid down in the Declaration of
Independence that the legislative powers of the people cannot be
annihilated; that when the functionaries to whom they are entrusted
become incapable of exercising them, they revert to the people, who
have the right to exercise them in their primitive and original
capacity." "When, therefore, the government of old Virginia
capitulated to the Confederacy," said he, "the loyal people of
Western Virginia acted in accordance with the directing principle of
the Declaration of Independence."[115]

Conforming to the opinion of Mr. Brown, Mr. Colfax urged the
admission of the proposed new State, "because in their constitution,
the people provided for the ultimate extinction of slavery."[116] Among
other speakers urging the admission of the new State were Edwards,
Blair, Stevens, and Bingham. Edwards asserted that the two
questions presented had to do with (1) the constitutional power of

Congress to admit the State and (2) the question of expediency.
Blair, while urging the admission of the new State, took occasion to
inform Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, that the people of the proposed
new State of West Virginia had bound themselves to pay a just
proportion of the public debt owed by the State of Virginia, prior to
the passage of the Ordinance of Secession. Thaddeus Stevens held
that the act of the legislature of Virginia assenting to the division of
the State was invalid as such, but that West Virginia might be
admitted under the absolute power that the laws of war give to
Congress under such circumstances. "The Union," he said, "can
never be restored under the Constitution as it was," and with his
consent, it could never be restored with slavery to be protected by it.
He was in favor of admitting West Virginia because he "found in her
constitution a provision which would make her a free state."[117]

Perhaps no man in the House opposed more vigorously the
admission of the State under the bill being considered than did Mr.
Segar. According to his point of view, the people of the proposed
new State had made a pro-slavery constitution; they had retained
their former slave status, merely prohibiting the coming in for
permanent residence of additional slaves and free Negroes. The bill
presented here, he argued, requires them to strike out the provision
that they have seen fit to make with reference to slavery; Congress
has made for them a constitution of fast emancipation, one of virtual
anti-slavery variety. "This," said he, "is nothing less than a flagrant
departure from the doctrine that the States may of right manage their
domestic affairs and fashion their institutions as they will."[118] During
the course of his remarks, he found occasion to deny the
constitutionality of the legislature, by whose authority he held his
seat in Congress.

Concluding the debate, Mr. Bingham, who had advocated the
admission of the State throughout the course of its consideration by
the House, summed up in succinct form, first, the positions taken by
the preceding speakers; and second, citations and arguments to
show the constitutionality of the proceedings. Continuing, he urged
the expediency of admission; he asserted that the chief objection to

admission on the part of most of the gentlemen opposed was that,
thereby, a new slave State would be admitted into the Union; and
finally he trusted that the bill would pass, because his confidence in
the people of Western Virginia had convinced him that they would
not only ratify the provision for gradual emancipation, but would avail
themselves of the opportunity afforded by the President's
proclamation to bring about the immediate or ultimate emancipation
of every slave within the State. On motion, the roll was called and
the bill was passed by a vote of 96 to 55.[119]

On the twenty-third day of December, President Lincoln requested
the written opinion of the members of his cabinet on the Act for the
admission of West Virginia into the Union, first, as[120] to its
constitutionality and second, as to its expediency. Of the six
members who replied, Messrs. Seward, Chase and Stanton decided
that the measure was both constitutional and expedient; whereas
Welles, Blair and Bates decided that it was neither constitutional nor
expedient.[121] In the meanwhile, Governor Pierpont of the Restored
Government of Virginia sent to the President a message urging upon
him the absolute and complete necessity for his assent to the
measure.[122]

The decision of the President was awaited with anxiety. Without
underestimating the importance attaching to the opinions of his
advisors, it was evident that Mr. Lincoln's opinion was all-important.
Characteristic of the President, and despite the wealth of opinion and
advice at his command, he found his own reasons for concluding
that the act was both constitutional and expedient. Not the least
important one among these reasons was the fact that "the admission
of the new State would turn just that much slave soil to free."[123]

After the signing of the bill by the President and in conformity with
the requirements of the amended constitution, the constitutional
convention reassembled for the purpose of approving the gradual
emancipation amendment inserted by Congress. Completing its work
in a session of eight days, the Convention adjourned on the
twentieth day of February. On the twenty-sixth day of March the

people adopted the amendment; 27,749 voted for ratification and
572 for rejection. Certification of the election results was made to
Governor Pierpont, who forthwith communicated the fact to the
President of the United States. On the twentieth day of April,
President Lincoln issued his proclamation relating to the admission
of the State of West Virginia into the Union, the same to take effect
sixty days from date thereof. Accordingly, therefore, on the twentieth
day of June, 1863, the commonwealth of West Virginia formally
entered into the Union as a State, the first one to do so with a
constitution providing for the gradual emancipation of any class of
slaves within the limits of its territory.[124]

Alrutheus A. Taylor.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 13.

[2] Ibid., 13.

[3] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 1776-1861, 1-3.

[4] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 30.

[5] Ibid., 30.

[6] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 1776-1861, 137.

[7] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 42.

[8] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 1776-1861, 137.

[9] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 1776-1861.

[10] Ibid., 169.

[11] Ibid., 140, 141.

[12] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 38.

[13] Ibid., 47.

[14] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 45.

[15] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 187.

[16] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 186.

[17] Ibid., 189.

[18] Ibid., 192.

[19] Ibid., 1776-1861, 192.

[20] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 200.

[21] Ibid., 201.

[22] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 202.

[23] Ibid., 202.

[24] Ibid., 244.

[25] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 245.

[26] Ibid., 1776-1861, 251.

[27] Ibid., 251-252.

[28] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 253.

[29] Ibid., 253.

[30] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 262.

[31] Ibid., 264.

[32] Ibid., 265.

[33] Ibid., 1776-1861, 266.

[34] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 266.

[35] Ibid., 267.

[36] Ibid., 268.

[37] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 62.

[38] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 1776-1861, 269.

[39] Ibid., 269.

[40] Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 311.

[41] Hall, The Rending of Va., 60.

[42] Ibid., 61.

[43] Ambler, Sectionalism in Va., 1776-1861, 301.

[44] Hall, The Rending of Va., 60.

[45] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 8.

[46] Ibid., 10.

[47] Ibid., 14.

[48] Ibid., 19.

[49] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 63.

[50] Ibid., 41.

[51] Ibid., 45.

[52] Ibid., 48.

[53] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 63.

[54] Ibid., 64.

[55] Ibid., 83.

[56] Ibid., 108.

[57] Ibid., 86.

[58] Ibid., 92.

[59] Ibid., 139.

[60] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 284.

[61] Ibid., 318.

[62] Ibid., 318.

[63] Hall, The Rending of Va., 396.

[64] Ibid., 396.

[65] Hall, The Rending of Va., 416.

[66] Ibid., 416.

[67] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 417.

[68] Ibid., 418.

[69] Hall, The Rending of Va., 418.

[70] Ibid., 419.

[71] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 421.

[72] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 421-429.

[73] Ibid., 439.

[74] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 322.

[75] Ibid., 323.

[76] Hall, Rending of Va., p. 440.

[77] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 440-456.

[78] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 325.

[79] Congressional Globe, Pt. 3, 2nd Session, 37th Congress, 1861-62,
2864.

[80] Ibid., Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Congress, 1861-62, 2941.

[81] Ibid., Pt. 4 and App. 37th Cong., 2nd Session, 1861-62, 2941.

[82] Congressional Globe, 2942.

[83] Ibid., 3034.

[84] Ibid., 3034.

[85] Congressional Globe, 3035.

[86] Ibid., 3036.

[87] Congressional Globe, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session of 37th Congress,
1861-62, 3038.

[88] Congressional Globe, 3038.

[89] Ibid., 3134-3135.

[90] Ibid., 3308.

[91] Ibid., 3308.

[92] Ibid., 3308.

[93] Congressional Globe, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Cong., 1861-
62, 3308.

[94] Ibid., 3309.

[95] Congressional Globe, 3309.

[96] Ibid., 3310.

[97] Congressional Globe, 3311.

[98] Ibid., Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Sess., 37th Cong., 1861-62, 3314.

[99] Ibid., 3315.

[100] Congressional Globe, 3316.

[101] Congressional Globe, 3316.

[102] Ibid., 3316.

[103] Ibid., 3316.

[104] Congressional Globe, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Cong.,
1861-62, 3317.

[105] Ibid., 3317-3320.

[106] Congressional Globe, 3317-3320.

[107] Ibid., 3320.

[108] Ibid., 3320.

[109] Congressional Globe, Pt. 2, 3rd Session, 37th Cong., 1862-63, 952.

[110] Ibid., 1302.

[111] Ibid., Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Cong., 1861-62, 2933.

[112] Congressional Globe, 3397.

[113] Ibid., Pt. 1, 3rd Session, 37th Cong., 37.

[114] Hall, The Rending of Va., 474.

[115] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 475.

[116] Cong. Globe, Pt. 1, 3rd Session, 37th Congress, 43.

[117] Congressional Globe, 47-57.

[118] Ibid., 54.

[119] Congressional Globe, Pt. 1, 3rd Session, 37th Cong., 1862-63, 58.

[120] Hall, The Rending of Virginia, 485.

[121] Ibid., 490-494.

[122] Ibid., 488.

[123] Ibid., 496.

[124] Lewis, How W. Va. Was Made, 330-334.

CANADIAN NEGROES AND THE JOHN
BROWN RAID
Canada and Canadians were intimately connected with the most
dramatic incident in the slavery struggle prior to the opening of the
Civil War, the attack of John Brown and his men on the federal
arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, on the night of Sunday, October
16, 1859. The blow that Brown struck at slavery in this attack had
been planned on broad lines in Canada more than a year before at a
convention held in Chatham, Ontario, May 8-10, 1858. In calling this
convention in Canada, Brown doubtless had two objects in view: to
escape observation and to interest the Canadian Negroes in his
plans for freeing their enslaved race on a scale never before
dreamed of and in a manner altogether new. It was Brown's idea to
gather a band of determined and resourceful men, to plant them
somewhere in the Appalachian mountains near slave territory and
from their mountain fastness to run off the slaves, ever extending the
area of operations and eventually settling the Negroes in the territory
that they had long tilled for others. He believed that operations of this
kind would soon demoralize slavery in the South and he counted
upon getting enough help from Canada to give the initial impetus.

What went on at Chatham in May, 1858, is fairly definitely known.
Brown came to Chatham on April 30 and sent out invitations to what
he termed "a quiet convention ... of true friends of freedom,"
requesting attendance on May 10. The sessions were held on May
8th and 10th, Saturday and Monday, and were attended by twelve
white men and thirty-three Negroes. William C. Munroe, a colored
preacher, acted as chairman. Brown himself made the opening and
principal speech of the convention, outlining plans for carrying on a
guerilla warfare against the whites, which would free the slaves, who
might afterwards be settled in the more mountainous districts. He
expected that many of the free Negroes in the Northern States would
flock to his standard, that slaves in the South would do the same,

and that some of the free Negroes in Canada would also accompany
him.

The main business before the convention was the adoption of a
constitution for the government of Brown's black followers in the
carrying out of his weird plan of forcible emancipation. Copies of the
constitution were printed after the close of the Chatham gathering
and furnished evidence against Brown and his companions when
their plans came to ground and they were tried in the courts of
Virginia. Brown himself was elected commander-in-chief, J. H. Kagi
was named secretary of war, George B. Gill, secretary of the
treasury, Owen Brown, one of his sons, treasurer, Richard Realf,
secretary of state, and Alfred M. Ellsworth and Osborn Anderson,
colored, were named members of Congress.

It was more than a year before Brown could proceed to the
execution of his plan. Delays of various kinds had upset his original
plans, but early in June, 1859, he went to Harper's Ferry with three
companions and rented a farm near that town. Others joined them at
intervals until at the time of their raid he had eighteen followers, four
of whom were Negroes. The story of the attack and its failure need
not be told here. It is sufficient to say that when the fighting ended on
Tuesday morning, October 18, John Brown himself was wounded
and a prisoner; ten of his party, including two of his sons, were dead,
and the others were fugitives from justice. Brown was given a
preliminary examination on October 25th and on the following day
was brought to trial at Charlestown. Public sentiment in Virginia
undoubtedly called for a speedy trial, but there was evidence of
panicky feeling in the speed with which John Brown was rushed to
punishment. On Monday, October 31, the jury, after 45 minutes'
deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty of treason, conspiracy with
slaves to rebel and murder in the first degree. On November 2nd,
sentence was pronounced, that Brown should be hanged on
December 2nd. As the trap dropped under him that day, Col.
Preston, who commanded the military escort, pronounced the words:
"So perish all such enemies of Virginia. All such enemies of the
Union. All such foes of the human race." That was the unanimous

sentiment of Virginia. But in the North Longfellow wrote in his journal:
"This will be a great date in our history; the date of a new revolution,
quite as much needed as the old one."[1] And Thoreau declared:
"Some 1800 years ago Christ was crucified; this morning,
perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a
chain that is not without its links."[2]

John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry made a profound impression in
Canada. Although the Chatham convention had been secret there
were some Canadians who knew that Brown was meditating a bold
stroke and could see at once the connection between Chatham and
Harper's Ferry. The raid was reported in detail in the Canadian press
and widely commented upon editorially. In a leading article extending
over more than one column of its issue of November 4, 1859, The
Globe, of Toronto, points out that the execution of Brown will but
serve to make him remembered as "a brave man who perilled
property, family, life itself, for an alien race." His death, continued the
editor, would make the raid valueless as political capital for the
South, which might expect other Browns to arise. References in this
article to the Chatham convention indicate that George Brown, editor
of The Globe, knew what had been going on in Canada in May,
1858. Three weeks later, The Globe, with fine discernment, declared
that if the tension between north and south continued, civil war would
be inevitable and "no force that the south can raise can hold the
slaves if the north wills that they be free."[3] On the day of Brown's
execution The Globe said: "His death will aid in awakening the north
to that earnest spirit which can alone bring the south to understand
its true position," and added that it was a "rare sight to witness the
ascent of this fine spirit out of the money-hunting, cotton-worshipping
American world."[4] Once again, with insight into American affairs it
predicted that "if a Republican president is elected next year, nothing
short of a dissolution of the union will satisfy them" (the cotton
States).

The special interest taken by The Globe in American affairs and its
sane comment on the developments in the slavery struggle were due
to George Brown's understanding of the situation, resulting from his

residence for a time under the stars and stripes before coming to
Canada. The feeling of the public in Toronto over the execution of
John Brown was shown by the large memorial service held in St.
Lawrence Hall on Dec. 11, 1859, at which the chief speaker was
Rev. Thomas M. Kinnaird, who had himself attended the Chatham
convention.[5] In his address Mr. Kinnaird referred to a talk he had
had with Brown, in which the latter said that he intended to do
something definite for the liberation of the slaves or perish in the
attempt. The collection that was taken up at this meeting was
forwarded to Mrs. Brown. At Montreal a great mass meeting was
held in St. Bonaventure Hall, attended by over one thousand people,
at which resolutions of sympathy were passed. Among those on the
platform at this meeting were L. H. Holton, afterwards a member of
the Brown-Dorion and Macdonald-Dorion administrations, and John
Dougall, founder of The Montreal Witness. At Chatham and other
places in the western part of the province similar meetings were
held.

The slave-holding States were by no means blind to the amount of
support and encouragement that was coming from Canada for the
abolitionists.[6] They were quite aware that Canada itself had an
active abolitionist group. They probably had heard of the Chatham
convention; they knew of it, at least, as soon as the raid was over. In
his message to the legislature of Virginia immediately after the
Harper's Ferry incident Governor Wise made direct reference to the
anti-slavery activity in Canada. "This was no result of ordinary
crimes," he declared. "... It was an extraordinary and actual invasion,
by a sectional organization, specially upon slaveholders and upon
their property in negro slaves.... A provisional government was
attempted in a British province, by our own countrymen, united to us
in the faith of confederacy, combined with Canadians, to invade the
slave-holding states ... for the purpose of stirring up universal
insurrection of slaves throughout the whole south."[7]

Speaking further of what he conceived to be the spirit of the North he
said: "It has organized in Canada and traversed and corresponded
thence to New Orleans and from Boston to Iowa. It has established

spies everywhere, and has secret agents in the heart of every slave
state, and has secret associations and 'underground railroads' in
every free state."[8]

Speaking on December 22, 1859, to a gathering of medical students
who had left Philadelphia, Governor Wise is quoted as saying: "With
God's help we will drive all the disunionists together back into
Canada. Let the compact of fanaticism and intolerance be confined
to British soil."[9] The New York Herald quoted Governor Wise as
calling upon the President to notify the British Government that
Canada should no longer be allowed, by affording an asylum to
fugitive slaves, to foster disunion and dissension in the United
States. Wise even seems to have had the idea that the President
might be bullied into provoking trouble with Great Britain over this
question. "The war shall be carried into Canada," he said in one of
his outbursts.[10]

Sympathy for the South was shown in the comment of a part of the
Tory press in Canada, The Leader declaring that Brown's attack on
Harper's Ferry was an "insane raid" and predicting that the South
would sacrifice the union before submitting to such spoliation.[11] The
viewpoint of The Leader and its readers may be further illustrated by
its declaration that the election campaign of 1860 was dominated by
a "small section of ultra-abolitionists who make anti-slavery the
beginning, middle and end of their creed." As for Lincoln he was
characterized as "a mediocre man and a fourth-rate lawyer,"[12] but
then some of the prominent American newspapers made quite as
mistaken an estimate of Lincoln at that time.

The collapse of John Brown's great adventure at Harper's Ferry
furnished complete proof to the South of Canada's relation to that
event. The seizure of his papers and all that they told, the evidence
at the trial at Charlestown and the evidence secured by the
Senatorial Committee which investigated the affair, all confirmed the
suspicion that in the British provinces to the north there was
extensive plotting against the slavery system. The Senatorial
Committee declared in its findings that the proceedings at Chatham

had had as their object "to subvert the government of one or more of
the States, and, of course, to that extent the government of the
United States."[13] Questions were asked of the witnesses before the
investigating committee which showed that in the minds of the
members of that committee there was a distinctly Canadian end to
the Harper's Ferry tragedy.[14] Their suspicions may have been
further confirmed by the fact that Brown's New England
confederates, Sanborn, Stearns and Howe, all fled to Canada
immediately after the raid.

In the actual events at Harper's Ferry the assistance given by
Canada was small. Of the men who marched out with Brown on that
fateful October night only one could in any way be described as a
Canadian. This was Osborn Perry Anderson, a Negro born free in
Pennsylvania. He was working as a printer in Chatham at the time of
the convention and threw in his lot with Brown. He was one of those
who escaped at Harper's Ferry. He later wrote an account of the
affair, served during the latter part of the Civil War in the northern
army and died at Washington in 1871. He is described by Hinton as
"well educated, a man of natural dignity, modest, simple in character
and manners."[15]

There naturally arises the question, why was the aid given John
Brown by the Canadian Negroes so meagre? That Brown had
counted on considerable help in his enterprise from the men who
joined with him in drafting the "provisional constitution" is certain.
John Edwin Cook, one of Brown's close associates, declared in his
confession made after Harper's Ferry, that "men and money had
both been promised from Chatham and other parts of Canada."[16]
Yet, apart from Anderson, a Negro, only one other Canadian of either
color seems to have had any share in the raid. Dr. Alexander Milton
Ross went to Richmond, Virginia, before the blow was struck, as he
had promised Brown he would do, and was there when word came
of its unhappy ending. Brown evidently counted on Ross being able
to keep him in touch with developments at the capital of Virginia.

Chatham had been chosen as the place of meeting with special
reference to the effect it might have on the large Negro population
resident in the immediate vicinity. There were more Negroes within
fifty miles of Chatham than in any other section of Canadian territory
and among them were men of intelligence, education and daring,
some of them experienced in slave raiding. Brown was justified in
expecting help from them. There is also evidence that among the
Negroes themselves there existed a secret organization, known
under various names, having as its object to assist fugitives and
resist their masters. Help from this organization was also expected.
[17] Hinton says that Brown "never expected any more aid from them
than that which would give a good impetus."[18] John Brown himself
is quoted by Realf, one of his associates, as saying that he expected
aid from the Negroes generally, both in Canada and the United
States,[19] but it must be remembered that his plans called for quality
rather than quantity of assistance. A few daring men, planted in the
mountains of Virginia, would have accomplished his initial purpose
better than a thousand.

The real reason why the Canadian Negroes failed to respond in the
summer of 1860 when Brown's men were gathering near the
boundary line of slavery seems to be that too great a delay followed
after the Chatham convention. The convention was held on May 8
and 10, 1858; but Brown did not attack Harper's Ferry until the night
of October 16, 1859, nearly a year and a half later. The zeal for
action that manifested itself in May, 1858, had cooled off by October,
1859, the magnetic influence of Brown himself had been withdrawn,
and the Negroes had entered into new engagements. Frank B.
Sanborn says he understood from Brown that he hoped to strike
about the middle of May of 1858, that is about a week after the
convention or as soon as his forces could gather at the required
point.[20] The delay was caused by the partial exposure of Brown's
plans to Senator Henry Wilson by Hugh Forbes, who had been close
to Brown. Panic seized Brown's chief white supporters in New
England, the men who financed his various operations, and they
decided that the plans must be changed. Brown was much
discouraged by their decision, but being dependent upon them for

support in his work he submitted and went west to Kansas. Among
his exploits there was the running off of more than a dozen slaves
whom he landed safely at Windsor, Canada.

There was some effort made in the early summer of 1859 to enlist
the support of the Canadian Negroes,[21] the mission being in charge
of John Brown, Jr., who was assisted by Rev. J. W. Loguen, a well-
known Negro preacher and anti-slavery worker. Together they visited
Hamilton, St. Catharines, Chatham, London, Buxton and Windsor,
helping also to organize branches of the League of Liberty among
the Negroes. The letters of John Brown, Jr., show that there was little
enthusiasm for the cause, which, indeed, could only have been
presented in an indefinite way. There was more interest at Chatham
than elsewhere, as might be expected, but even there it was not
sufficiently substantial to bring the men that were needed. Against
this rather dismal picture should be placed some evidence that there
were a few Canadians on the way South when the end came.[22]

Fred Landon.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Longfellow, Life of Longfellow, vol. II, p. 347.

[2] Thoreau, A Plea for Capt. John Brown, read at Concord, October 30,
1859.

[3] Toronto Weekly Globe, Nov. 25, 1859.

[4] Ibid., Dec. 9, 1859, and Dec. 16, 1859.

[5] Toronto Weekly Globe, Dec. 12, 1859.

[6] "There is no country in the world so much hated by slaveholders as
Canada," Ward, Autobiography of a Fugitive Negro, London, 1855, p.
158.

[7] Journal of the Senate of Virginia, 1859, see pp. 9-25.

[8] The Toronto Weekly Globe of Dec. 6, 1859, reported Governor Wise
as saying: "One most irritating feature of this predatory war is that it has
its seat in the British provinces which furnish asylum for our fugitives and
send them and their hired outlaws upon us from depots and rendezvous
in the bordering states."

[9] Toronto Weekly Globe, Dec. 28, 1859.

[10] Toronto Weekly Globe, Dec. 28, 1859.

[11] Ibid., Dec. 23, 1859.

[12] Ibid., July 20, 1860.

[13] Harper's Ferry Invasion, Report of Senatorial Committee, pp. 2 and
7.

[14] Harper's Ferry Invasion, Report of Senatorial Committee, p. 99.

[15] Hinton, John Brown and His Men, pp. 504-507.

[16] Ibid., appendix, p. 704. See also report of Senatorial Committee, p.
97.

[17] Hinton, John Brown and His Men, pp. 171-172.

[18] Ibid., p. 175.

[19] Report of Senatorial Committee, p. 97.

[20] Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, pp. 457-8.

[21] Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, pp. 536-538, 547.

[22] Hinton, John Brown and His Men, pp. 261-263.

THE NEGRO AND THE SPANISH PIONEER IN
THE NEW WORLD
Negro slaves probably made their first appearance in the New World
in 1502. Those who came in the beginning were Christians and
personal servants of masters who had acquired them in Spain, but
soon afterwards, thanks to the influence of the religious order of
Predicatores and of the more famous Las Casas, they began to be
introduced directly from Africa, in order that the sufferings of the
Indians who were dying out under the Spanish system of forced
labor might be alleviated.[1] By the close of the second decade of the
sixteenth century no inconsiderable number had been brought over,
and a perusal of the early accounts of the exploits of the
Conquistadores will reveal the fact that the Negro participated in the
exploration and occupation of nearly every important region from
New Mexico to Chile. As personal attendants of the Spanish
Pioneers, as burden-bearers and drudges connected with
exploration and the founding of colonies, they played an
indispensable though inconspicuous rôle in one of the greatest
achievements which history records. Such accounts of their service
as have been preserved are, for the most part, accidental: only when
he performed an act of unusual heroism or connected himself with a
strange or humorous occurrence was the Negro's name placed
alongside of that of his Spanish master where it is destined to remain
for all time.

When Balboa set out from Darién on the tour of exploration which
resulted in the discovery of the South Sea, at least one Negro, Nufio
de Olano, was numbered in his party. Three years later, when the
timbers for the four boats with which he intended to explore the
Pacific had been prepared, thirty Negroes were among those who
carried them piece by piece over mountain and jungle from Acla to
San Miguel. Moreover, when Balboa's successor constructed the

first highway from ocean to ocean he made use of Negro labor along
with that of the Indian.[2]

Hernán Cortés carried with him from Cuba not only Indian servants
but Negro slaves who helped to drag along the artillery which he
used to strike mortal terror into the Indians of Mexico. There has
been preserved a list of those who set out on this famous expedition,
and among the names are those of two Negroes, one of whom Saco
claims to have been the first to sow and reap small grain in Mexico.
Moreover, two Negroes were among the company sent out by
Velásquez in 1520 to punish Cortés for his insubordination. One of
these has the unenviable distinction of having introduced smallpox
among the Mexican Indians. The other, who seems to have
observed the fight between the men of the agent of Velásquez
(Narváez) from the safe and comfortable distance of a neighboring
tree, has, because of some witty and flattering remarks which he
made to Cortés, received the honor of a paragraph in the Decades of
Herrera.[3]

It is not definitely known whether Pedro de Alvarado, one of the
bravest and most gallant lieutenants of Cortés, carried Negroes with
him into Guatemala in 1523, but it is certain that eleven years later,
when his ambition and love of gain led him to fit out that ill-fated
expedition to Quito, he saw fit to include in the company two hundred
black slaves, most of whom perished while making their way through
the blinding snows of the Andes.[4]

It is certain, moreover, that several Negroes were along with the
Conquistadores of Perú and Chile. The contract of Francisco Pizarro
permitted him to introduce fifty Negroes into Perú free of duty; and
even before this, Negroes had accompanied those who had spied
out the land. In 1525, when Diego de Almagro effected a landing
near the port of Quemado, on the west coast of South America, and
attempted to penetrate the adjacent country, he encountered rather
severe opposition from the Indians of the section. During the
resulting skirmish one of his eyes was crushed by a dart and he was
saved from captivity and death only by the valiant succor of his

Negro slave. A year later, the debarkation of a Spaniard and his
slave at Tumbez resulted in an amusing occurrence which once
more gave the Negro a few brief sentences in the Decades.
Astonished at the color of his face, the natives of the region had him
wash time after time in order to see if the black would disappear; and
the Negro, true to his good nature and love of a joke, complied
willingly while he grinned so as to display his pearly white teeth.[5]

Several Negroes assisted the Yanaconas Indians in carrying the
baggage of Diego de Almagro and Rodrigo Orgoñez during their
perilous journey along the frozen Andes from Cuzco to Chile; and
many of them perished on the way.[6] Moreover, upon at least one
occasion the forces of the great conqueror of Chile, Pedro Valdivia
himself, would probably have been destroyed, had it not been for the
cool-headed alertness of Captain Gonzalo de los Rios and a Negro
who managed to procure the saddle-horses of the Spaniards as
soon as they saw a band of Indians dart from their hiding places.[7]

Numerous African slaves were along with the Spanish pioneers in
Venezuela. Ortal, Sedeño, and Heredia each had permission to
introduce one hundred Negroes to build fortresses and search for
mines; and in 1537, when the licentiate Vadillo came to Cartagena to
hold the residencia of Heredia, he brought down a large number who
later accompanied him on the luckless excursions which he
undertook apparently in the hope of finding the mines of Perú.[8]

But of all the members of the colored race who accompanied the
Spaniards upon their explorations in the New World, it may be
doubted whether any played so conspicuous a part as did
Estevánico, or Estévan, an Arabian black from Azamor, in Morocco,
and the slave of Andrés Dorantes de Carrança. He was a member
and one of the survivors of the ill-fated expedition of Pánfilo de
Narváez which went to pieces somewhere on the southern coast of
the United States, (1528). For six years he was a captive and slave
among the Indians of Texas where, in company with others of the
expedition who had escaped with their lives, he effected miraculous
cures. He was one of the three companions of Cabeza de Vaca on

his historic journey across the continent from the Gulf of Mexico to
Culiacán. From Culiacán he accompanied De Vaca and his
companions to Mexico City, where he was honored by being made
the slave of the viceroy, Antonio de Mendoza.

Surely these were rare and noteworthy experiences for a member of
the black race, but still greater things awaited Estévan. He was
destined ere he met his tragic fate to accompany the expedition
which resulted in the discovery of New Mexico and Arizona. The
party which, besides the Negro, consisted of three Spaniards—Fray
Marcos de Niza, a lay brother, and Fray Onorato—and several Pima
Indians, set out from Culiacán on March 7, 1539. They were in
search of the famed Seven Cities.

After proceeding northward several days, Fray Marcos decided to
rest while he dispatched the Negro to reconnoiter. He directed
Estévan to advance to the north several leagues, and in case he
discovered indications of a rich and populous country, to return in
person or await his coming, sending back, by some of the Pimas
who were to accompany him, a cross the size of which should be in
proportion to the importance of the information gained. Four days
passed, and then the messengers of Estévan returned bearing a
cross "as high as a man" and the news that the Negro had
discovered "the greatest thing in the world." Fray Marcos hastened
to follow in the footsteps of Estévan hoping to overtake him soon, but
his efforts were vain. The dusky adventurer could not resist the
temptation to proceed and win for himself the honor of conquering
the rich country.

This country concerning which such glowing reports had reached
Estévan was none other than the land of the Pueblo Indians. His
procedure after separating from Fray Marcos is thus narrated by a
contemporary, though not an eyewitness:

"After Estevan had left the friars, he thought he could get all the
reputation and honor himself, and that if he should discover these
settlements with such famous high houses, alone, he would be
considered bold and courageous. So he proceeded with the people

who had followed him, and attempted to cross the wilderness which
lies between the country he had passed through and Cibola, ... [He]
reached Cibola loaded with the large quantity of turquoises they [the
Indians along the route] had given him and some beautiful women
whom the Indians who followed him and carried his things were
taking with them and had given him. These had followed him from all
the settlements he had passed, believing that under his protection
they could traverse the whole world without any danger. But as the
people in this country were more intelligent than those who followed
Estevan, they lodged him in a little hut they had outside their village,
and the older men and governors heard his story and took steps to
find out the reason he had come to that country. The account which
the Negro gave them of two white men who were following him, sent
by a great lord, who knew about the things in the sky, and how these
were coming to instruct them in divine matters, made them think that
he must be a spy or a guide from some nations who wished to come
and conquer them, because it seemed to them unreasonable to say
that the people were white in the country from which he came and
that he was sent by them, he being black. Besides these other
reasons, they thought it was hard of him to ask them for turquoises
and women, and so they decided to kill him. They did this, but they
did not kill any of those who went with him...."[9]

From this and other contemporary sources, Lowery[10] has
constructed a more complete and lively picture of Estévan's last
days. Lowery says that "he travelled with savage magnificence, gaily
dressed with bells and feathers fastened about his arms and legs.
He carried with him a gourd decorated with bells and two feathers,
one white and the other red. This gourd he sent before him by
messengers as a symbol of authority and to command obedience, as
he had seen successfully done in the western part of Texas, when in
company with Cabeza de Vaca.... As soon as they had delivered the
gourd to the chief [of the pueblo] and he had observed the bells he
became very angry," and ordered Estévan and his party to depart at
once. But the Negro was persistent. He and his retinue lodged just
outside the walls of the Pueblo of Hawaikuh. Early the next morning

they were attacked by a large band of warriors from the Pueblo and
Estévan was killed while attempting to make his escape.

There has been preserved among the legends of the Zuñi Pueblos of
New Mexico one which apparently dates back to the coming of
Estévan, the Black Mexican from the south. The scene of his death
is placed at Kiakima, and the single Black Mexican has been
magnified into many, but the legend is nevertheless interesting and
significant.

"It is to be believed that a long time ago, when roofs lay over the
walls of Kya-ki-me, when smoke hung over the housetops, and the
ladder rounds were still unbroken in Kya-ki-me, then the Black
Mexicans came from their abodes in Everlasting Summerland. One
day, unexpectedly, out of Hemlock Cañon they came, and
descended to Kya-ki-me. But when they said they would enter the
covered way, it seems that our ancients looked not gently at them;
for with these Black Mexicans came many Indians of So-no-li, as
they call it now, ... who were enemies of our ancients. Therefore,
these our ancients, being always bad-tempered, and quick to anger,
made fools of themselves after their fashion, rushing into their town
and out of their town, shouting, skipping and shooting with their
sling-stones and arrows and tossing their war-clubs. Then the
Indians of So-no-li set up a great howl, and thus they and our
ancients did much ill to one another. Then and thus was killed by our
ancients, right where the stone stands down by the arroyo of Kya-ki-
me, one of the Black Mexicans, a large man, with chilli lips [i.e., lips
swollen from eating chilli peppers], and some of the Indians they
killed, catching others. Then the rest ran away, chased by our
grandfathers, and went back toward their country in the Land of
Everlasting Summer...."[11]

J. Fred Rippy.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] José Antonio Saco, Historia de la Esclavitud ... (Barcelona, 1879), IV,
57 ff.

[2] Saco, op. cit., IV, 74, 75, 178; Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, Historia
General ... tom. 3, lib. 29, cap. 3.

[3] Dec. 2, lib. 10, cap. 4; Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Conquista de Nueva-
Espana, cap. 124.

[4] Herrera, dec. 5, lib. 5, cap. 7-9.

[5] Dec. 3, lib. 10, cap. 5.

[6] Herrera, op. cit., dec. 5, lib. 10, cap. 1, 2, y 3.

[7] Saco, op. cit. IV, 166.

[8] Ibid., IV, 170.

[9] Pedro de Casteñeda, "Account of the Expedition to Cibola which took
place in the year 1540 ...," translated in Spanish Explorers in the
Southern United States (J. F. Jameson, ed.), pp. 289-290.

[10] Spanish Settlements in the United States, 1513-1561, pp. 278-280.

[11] Quoted in Lowery, op. cit., pp. 281-282.

THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE
NEGROES OF NEW YORK PRIOR TO 1861
The institution of slavery existed in the State of New York until 1827.
The number of slaves had increased from 6,000 slaves in 1700 to
21,000 in 1790.[1] Moved by the struggle for the rights of man, the
legislature of New York passed in 1799 an act of emancipation,
providing that all children born of slave parents after July 4 ensuing
should be free and subject to apprenticeship in the case of males
until the age of 28, and of the females until the age of 25, while the
exportation of slaves was forbidden. By the process of emancipation
all slaves were liberated in 1827. Thenceforth, birth on the soil of
New York was a guaranty of freedom and slaves from other States
fled to New York as an asylum.[2] As a result of these efforts at
gradual emancipation, there were more than 10,000 free Negroes in
New York City in 1800.

We are to inquire here as to exactly what was the economic
condition of these Negroes. What of their wealth, their means and
methods of living well and wisely? With gradual emancipation and
the cessation of the sale of slaves the Negroes became
economically unimportant to the whites.[3] They were employed as
servants, laborers, sailors and mechanics.[4] It was reported to the
American Convention of Abolition Societies in 1797, however, "that a
degree of decorum and industry prevailed among them much to their
honor and advantage." This report further said that "Many in the
town and country were freeholders, several worth from $300 to
$1,300. Various associations among the free blacks for mutual
support, benefit and improvement had been established. One of
these had a lot for a burying ground and the site of a church worth
fifteen hundred dollars. All were in a state of progressive
improvement."[6] Still another part of the report made by these
delegates stated that "on the whole they exhibited an example of
successful industry highly honorable to themselves, gratifying to their

parents, encouraging to patrons and consoling to humanity."[7] Again,
in 1803, the New York delegates reported that the "increase of the
number of freeholders among the free blacks is an evidence of the
progress of industry, sobriety, and economy, and strengthens the
hope that they will gradually emerge from their degraded condition to
usefulness and respectability."[8]

Further evidence of the economic improvement of free Negroes
during this period is evidenced by a significant appeal made by the
members of the American Convention of Abolition Societies to the
Free Negroes of New York in 1805. "The education of your
offspring," said these friends of the Negroes, "is a subject of lasting
importance and has obtained a large portion of your attention and
care. In this, too, we call upon you for your aid; many of you have
been favored to acquire a comfortable portion of property and are
consequently enabled to contribute in some measure to the means
of educating your offspring."[9] In response to this appeal, the society
of free people of color was established in 1812 to maintain a Free
Orphan School in New York City and employed two teachers; and
there were three other schools which they supported with their tuition
fees, while those who were not sufficiently well circumstanced to
educate their children sent them to the African Free Schools
maintained by the New York Manumission Society.[10]

These African Free Schools were conducted in such a way as to
have a direct bearing on the economic improvement of the Negroes.
In 1818 the New York Mission Society informed the American
Convention of Abolition Societies that the former had devised a plan
of extending their care to certain children of color who had
completed their course of instruction in the New York African Free
Schools "in putting them at some useful trade or employment."
These friends of the race in New York said that it had long been a
regret that Negro children "educated at their schools had been
suffered after leaving it to waste their time in idleness, thereby
incurring those vicious habits which were calculated to render their
previous education worse than useless." To remedy this evil they
appointed an Indenturing Committee, whose duty was to provide

places for these children and put them at a trade or some other
employment when they had completed their education. The
Committee took special care that the persons with whom children
might be placed should be those of good character and while on the
one hand they insisted that the children demean themselves with
sobriety they extended their guardian care to them so that they might
not "become subjects of oppression and tyranny." This Indenturing
Committee in reaching its decision as to the sort of occupations to
which the children could be apprenticed expressed a decided
preference for agricultural pursuits, being persuaded that an
occupation of this nature was far more conducive to the moral
improvement of these Negroes than the pursuits of the city under the
most favorable circumstances. This plan upon being presented to
the parents and guardians of these children was favorably received,
but it does not appear that a large number of them thereafter
participated in agriculture.[11]

The activity of the girls who had received instruction in household
economics in free schools showed progress in another direction.
They formed a society under the name of the African Dorcas
Association for the purpose of procuring and making garments for
the destitute. The boys, too, contributed their share to this progress,
taking up such trades as sail makers, tire-workers, tailors, carpenters
and blacksmiths.

Such reports[12] represent the condition of the free Negroes of New
York before slavery was completely abolished. This change in the
status of the Negroes then, and the evolving industrial system
effected a change in the economic condition of the Negro throughout
the city.[13]

It must be remembered in this connection, however, that these
Negroes experienced difficulties on account of their color either in
obtaining a thorough knowledge of the trades or, after they had
obtained it, in finding employment in the best shops. White and black
laborers at first worked together in the same room and at the same
machine. But soon prejudice developed. It was made more intense

by the immigration into this country of a large number of poor
Germans and Irish, who came to our shores because of the
disturbed conditions of Europe. Their superior training and
experience enabled them to get positions in most of the trades. Most
northern men, moreover, still objected to granting Negroes economic
equality. When the supply of labor exceeded the demand, the free
Negroes, unable to compete with these foreigners, were driven not
only from the respectable positions, but also from the menial
pursuits. Measures to restrict to the whites employment in higher
pursuits were proposed and where they were not actually made
laws, public opinion, to that effect, accomplished practically the same
result. This reversal of the position of labor, however, did not take
place without a struggle, for there soon arose ill-feeling which
culminated in the riots between 1830 and 1840.[14]

In spite of this condition, Arthur Tappan, Gerrit Smith and William
Lloyd Garrison reported to the Second American Convention for the
Improvement of the Free People of Color that "by perseverance, the
youth of color could succeed in procuring profitable situations.[15] To
these benefactors, however, it was soon evident that Negroes had to
be trained for the competition with white laborers or be doomed to
follow menial employment. In accordance with this Gerrit Smith
established in 1834 a school in Peterboro, for the purpose of training
Negro youths under the manual labor system.[16] With such training,
he believed, free Negroes would gain a livelihood, send their children
to school, and gradually accumulate money. He hoped that many of
them would make progress to the extent of possessing property
valued at $250, which amount would enable citizens of color[17] to
vote in the State of New York.

Hoping to put an end to economic poverty among these Negroes,
Gerrit Smith devised a scheme for the distribution of 3,000 parcels of
land of 40 or 60 acres each among the unfortunate blacks then
handicapped in this untoward situation in New York City. From a list
of names furnished him by Rev. Charles B. Ray, Rev. Theodore F.
Wright and Dr. J. McCune Smith, three prominent Negroes in New
York City, Gerrit Smith apportioned this land among the Negro

colonists in the counties of Franklin, Essex, Hamilton, Fulton,
Oneida, Delaware, Madison, and Ulster. On account of the
intractability of the soil, however, the harshness of the climate, and,
in a great measure, the inefficiency of the settlers, the enterprise was
a failure and offered no relief to the economic condition of the
Negroes in this city.

It will be interesting to note the observations of a promoter of
colonization on the condition of Negroes in New York City at this
time. While his statements must be taken with some reservation
they, nevertheless, contain a truth which must be taken into account.
Hoping to induce Negroes to accept colonization in Africa, he
endeavored to show that they could not finally succeed in the
struggle in competition with the white laborers and would be crowded
out of the higher pursuits of labor. He referred to the fact that a few
years prior to 1846 there was a vast body of colored laborers in New
York but that at that time they could not be seen. The writer inquired
as to "who may find a dray or a cart or a hack driven by a colored
man?" "Where are the vast majority of colored people in the city?"
"None," said he, "can deny that they are sunken much lower than
they were a few years ago and are compelled to pursue none but the
meanest avocations."

The gentleman making these observations tried to emphasize this
striking contrast by calling attention to the fact that New York was a
place that had a great deal of compassion for the slave while it was
neglecting to take into account the awful condition of the free
Negroes, in spite of the fact that the process of their depression had
been going on at the same time that the abolitionists in New York
were working for the emancipation of the slave. Although these
friends of the Negroes and the Negroes themselves had during
these years been boldly asserting their rights and demanding to be
elevated, they had been losing ground, sinking into meaner
occupations and less lucrative employments. He believed that the
day was not far when every desirable business in the city would be
entirely monopolized by the whites because of the rapid influx of
foreigners who had to labor or serve and knew how to toil to

advantage, to the extent that they could make their labor more
valuable than that of the people of color.[18]

In things economic, however, the free Negroes of New York made
considerable improvement after 1845; a decided improvement in this
respect was noted by 1851. So evident was this progress that the
colonizationists who had repeatedly referred to the poverty of the
Negroes and the prejudice against them in the laboring world as a
reason why they should migrate to Africa, thereafter ceased to say
very much about their poverty, shifting their complaint rather to social
proscription. In 1851 a contributor to The African Repository, the
organ of the American Colonization Society, discussed the situation
of the 48,000 free Negroes of New York. Directing his attention to the
14,000 living in the metropolis, the editor said that the condition of
4,000 of them approached that of comfort; 1,000 of the number
having substantial wealth, or that one out of every ten was in a
pleasant and enviable social condition. As this pessimist was
compelled to concede that this was not a bad showing for an
oppressed people he goes off on another line, saying: "Everywhere
the Negro, whatever his wealth or education or talents, is excluded
from social equality and social freedom."[19]

There were many instances of individual enterprise, however, but
these often meant little since Negroes had such a little knowledge of
business that white persons often defrauded them out of what they
accumulated. Sojourner Truth accumulated more than enough
money to supply her wants, but lost some of it by depositing it in a
bank without taking account of the sum which she deposited and
without asking for the interest when she drew her money from the
bank.[20] One Pierson persuaded her to take her money out of the
bank and invest it in a common fund which he was raising to be
drawn upon by all needy and faithful free Negroes.[21] Her savings,
therefore, served to increase this fund, which instead of relieving the
economic condition of many needy free Negroes enriched this white
impostor.

As evidences of this unusual progress of the Negroes there are
many instances of persons who gained wealth in spite of the various
handicaps. Many of the caterers and restaurant keepers of high
order of New York were Negroes, the most popular of whom being
Thomas Downing, the keeper of a restaurant under what is now the
Drexel Building, near the corner of Wall and Broad streets, New York
City.[22] Abner H. Frances and James Garrett, were formerly
extensive clothiers of Buffalo, New York, doing business to the
amount of $60,000 annually. They continued their enterprise
successfully for years, their credit being good for any amount of
money they needed. They failed in business in 1849 but thereafter
adjusted the claims against them.[23] Henry Scott and Company, of
New York City, engaged in the pickling business, principally confined
to supplying vessels.[24] Edward V. Clark, another business man of
New York, had a jewelry establishment requiring much capital. His
name had, moreover, a respectable standing even among the
dealers of Wall Street.[25] Mr. Huston kept for years an intelligence
office in New York. He was succeeded by Philip A. Bell, an excellent
business man. Concerning it, Austin Steward reported in his book
entitled "The Condition of the Colored People" that "his business is
very extensive, being sought from all points of the city by the first
people of the community.[26]

Many other names may be mentioned. William H. Topp was one of
the leading merchant tailors of Albany, New York. Starting in the
world without aid he educated and qualified himself for business.[27]
In Penyan, Messrs. William Platt and Joseph C. Cassey were said to
be carrying on an extensive trade in lumber.[28]

Situated in the midst of a rapidly developing country the enterprises
of these free Negroes increased in importance every year. This was
especially true of the drug stores of Dr. James McCune Smith, on
Broadway, a Negro physician, who was practicing in New York City
during the thirties, and of the establishment of Dr. Philip White, on
Frankfort street. Many Negroes accumulated considerable wealth.
Edward Bidwell successfully operated during the period of 1827-40
two stores on the main street of New York City, hoarding

considerable money. Austin Steward, still another instance of New
York City, made "handsome profits" from the sale of spirituous
liquors. At one time he said that no further exertion was necessary
on his part to enjoy life, or to better his economic condition. Finally,
William Smith, a shrewd sailor of New York, managed to accumulate
considerable wealth.

The statistics of the census of 1850 give further evidences of this
general progress. Of the 50,000 free people of color in the State of
New York over 15 years of age in 1850, sixty were clerks, doctors
and lawyers and about 55 were merchants and teachers.[29] There
were, moreover:

2 apprentices 3 barkeepers 4 bakers
1 blacksmith 122 barbers 21 boarding
house keepers
28 boatmen 33 butchers 8 cigar
makers
12 carpenters 39 carmen 95 cooks
107 coachmen 2 confectioners 1 gunsmith
24 farmers 7 gardeners 3 merchants
2 hatters 11 ink makers 1144 laborers
3 jewelers 21 ministers 4 painters
24 musicians 434 mariners 2 mechanics
15 marketmen 4 printers 23 tailors
44 stewards 808 servants 23
shoemakers
12 sextons 8 teachers
207 engaged in other
occupations

Many Negroes used wisely the money which they obtained from
these businesses. Out of a free population of 50,000 Negroes,
5,447, or about one in ten was in school during this period. In a
pamphlet entitled the Present Condition of Free People of Color
published by James Freeman Clarke in 1859, the author stated that
they were no less neat in person and attire than their white
neighbors.[30] One year during the period from 1850 to 1860
Negroes of New York City invested in business carried on by
themselves $775,000; in businesses of Brooklyn $76,000. That

same year these free Negroes purchased real estate in New York
worth $733,000, and in Brooklyn $276,000.[31]

With complete freedom in New York, free Negroes made more
efforts to improve their condition. There were established several
newspapers which served not only to present their cause to the
public but also as economic factors. First of these must be
mentioned a publication called Freedom's Journal or The Rights of
All. This paper, edited by James B. Russworm, the first Negro
college graduate in the United States, and Rev. Samuel F. Cornish,
was established in March, 1827.[32] Another journal, styled The
Weekly Advocate, changing its name later to The Colored American,
appeared in New York, March 4, 1837. The editor was Philip A. Bell.
Later Charles Bennett Ray became one of the proprietors and
editors. Finally, mention must be made of such journals of this period
as The Elevator, of Albany, edited by Stephen Myers; The Genius of
Freedom, by David Ruggles; People's Press, by Thomas Hamilton;
and North Star, by Frederick Douglass. Concerning the last named
publication, it was generally said that it was conducted on a higher
plane than any of the others and that it was among the first
newspapers of the country.

Arnett G. Lindsay.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Census of New York before 1790:

Year Number
1664 "very few"
1678 "very few"
1698 King's County, 293.
1703, 5 counties about N. Y. City 1,301.
1712, 5 counties about N. Y. City 1,775.
1723 6,171
1731 7,231
1746 9,717
1774 21,717
1790 21,324
1800 20,903
1810 15,017
1820 10,088
1830 75
1840 4

NEW YORK CITY SLAVES.

1703 801
1712 960
1731 1,571
1737 1,719
1746 2,444

Morgan, Slavery in New York, page 38.

[2] New York Emancipation Law—African Repository, Vol. 31, page 155.

[3] Half a Man, M. W. Ovington, page 69.

[4] American Convention of Abolition Societies, 1797, p. 39.

[5] Ibid., p. 31.

[6] Ibid., p. 39.

[7] Ibid., p. 30.

[8] Ibid., 1803, p. 7.

[9] American Convention of Abolition Societies, 1805, p. 38.

[10] Ibid., 1812, p. 7.

[11] American Convention of Abolition Societies, 1812, p. 14.

[12] Inspectors of the New York African Free Schools reported to The
Commercial Advertiser, May 12, 1824, that "we never beheld a white
school of the same age in which without exception there was more order,
neatness of dress, and cleanliness of person."

[13] Ibid.

[14] Journal of Negro History, Vol. III, p. 354.

[15] Woodson, Education of the Negro Prior to 1861, p. 286.

[16] Journal of Negro History, Vol. III.

[17] Hurd's Law of Freedom-Bondage, p. 81.

[18] African Repository, September, 1846, p. 278.

[19] Ibid., 1851, p. 263.

[20] Narrative of Sojourner Truth, p. 99.

[21] Ibid., p. 99.

[22] Martin Delaney, Condition of Colored People, p. 139.

[23] Ibid., p. 102.

[24] Ibid., p. 106.

[25] Austin Steward, Condition of Colored People, p. 102.

[26] Ibid., p. 102.

[27] Austin Steward, Condition of Colored People, p. 102.

[28] Ibid., p. 132.

[29] Seventh Census of the United States.

[30] J. F. Clarke, Present Condition of People of Color, p. 14.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Afro-American Press, p. 27.

DOCUMENTS
THE APPEAL OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION OF
ABOLITION SOCIETIES

The student of the so-called Negro problem of today may find it
profitable to study the methods of persons thus concerned more than
a century ago. What their plans were, what machinery they
constructed for carrying them out, and the hopes they had for
ultimate success, will furnish much material for reflection for social
workers. There is published below, therefore, a number of the annual
appeals of the American Convention of Abolition Societies to the
various branches, setting forth the annual review of the work, the
general survey of results obtained and the ways and means to carry
it forward to a successful completion.

To the Antislavery Groups

To the Society for
promoting the abolition of Slavery, Ec.

It is with peculiar pleasure we inform you, that the Convention of Delegates, from most
of the Abolition Societies formed in the United States, met in this city, have, with much
unanimity, gone through the business which came before them. The advantages to be
derived from this meeting are so evident, that we have agreed earnestly to recommend
to you, that a similar meeting be annually convened, until the great object of our
association—the liberty of our fellowmen—shall be fully and equivocally established.

To obtain this important end, we conceive that it is proper, constantly to have in view
the necessity of using our utmost and unremitting endeavors to abolish slavery, and to
protect and meliorate the condition of the enslaved, and of the emancipated. The
irresistible, though silent progress of the principles of true philosophy, will do much for
us; but, placed in a situation well adapted to promote these principles, it surely
becomes us to improve every occasion of forwarding the great designs of our
institutions. For this purpose, we think it proper to request you to unite with us, in the
most strenuous exertions, to effect a compliance with the laws in favour of
emancipation; and, where these laws are deficient, respectful applications to the State-
Legislatures should not be discontinued, however unsuccessful they may prove.—Let
us remember, for our consolation and encouragement in these cases, that, although

interest and prejudice may oppose, yet the fundamental principles of our government,
as well as the progressive and rapid influence of reason and religion, are in our favour
—and let us never be discouraged by a fear of the event, from performing any task of
duty, when clearly pointed out; for it is an undoubted truth—that no good effort can ever
be entirely lost.

While contemplating the great principles of our associations, we cannot refrain from
recommending to your attention the propriety of using your endeavours to form, as
circumstances may require, Abolition Societies in your own, and in the neighboring
States; as, for want of the concurrence of others, the good intentions and efforts of
many an honest and zealous individual are often defeated.

But, while we wish to draw your attention to these objects, there is another which we
cannot pass over. We are all too much accustomed to the reproaches of the enemies of
our cause, on the subject of the ignorance and crimes of the Blacks, not to wish that
they were ill-founded. And though, to us, it is sufficiently apparent that this ignorance,
and these crimes, are owing to the degrading state of slavery; yet, may we not, with
confidence, attempt to do away the reproach?—Let us use our endeavours to have the
children of the emancipated, and even of the enslaved Africans, instructed in common
literature—in the principles of virtue and religion, and in those mechanic arts which will
keep them most constantly employed, and, of course, will less subject them to idleness
and debauchery; and thus prepare them for becoming good citizens of the United
States: a privilege and elevation to which we look forward with pleasure, and which we
believe can be best merited by habits of industry and virtue.

We shall transmit you an exact copy of our proceedings, with the different memorials
and addresses which to us have appeared necessary at this time; and would
recommend to you the propriety of giving full powers to the Delegates who are to meet
in the year 1795; believing that the business of that Convention will be rendered more
easy and more extensively useful, if you send, by your Representatives, certified
copies of the constitution and laws of your Society, and of all the laws existing in your
state concerning slavery, with such facts relative to this business, as may ascertain the
respective situation of slavery, and of the Blacks in general.

To the Society for
promoting the abolition of Slavery, &c.

The Delegates, from the several Abolition Societies in the United States, convened in
this city, express to you, with great satisfaction, the pleasure they have experienced
from the punctual attendance of the persons, delegated to this Convention, and that
harmony with which they have deliberated on the several matters that have been
presented to them, at this time, for their consideration. The benefits which may flow
from a continuance of this general meeting, by aiding the principal design of its
institution—the universal emancipation of the wretched Africans who are yet in
bondage, appear to us so many and important, that we are induced to recommend to
you, to send Delegates to a similar Convention, which we propose to be holden, in this
city, on the first day of January, in the year one thousand, seven hundred and ninety-
six.

We have thought it proper to request your further attention to that part of the address of
the former Convention, which relates to the procurement of certified copies of the laws
of your state respecting slavery; and that you would send, to the next Convention,
exact copies of all such laws as are now in force, and of such as have been repealed.
Convinced that an historical review of the various acts and provisions of the
Legislatures of the several states, relating to slavery, from the periods of their
respective settlements to the present time, by tracing the progress of the system to
African slavery in this country, and its successive change in the different governments
of the Union, would throw much light on the objects of our enquiry and attention, and
enable us to determine, how far the cause of justice and humanity has advanced
among us, and how soon we may reasonably expect to see it triumphant;—we
recommend to you, to take such measures as you may think conducive to that purpose,
for procuring materials for the work now proposed, and assisting its publication; and to
communicate, to the ensuing Convention, what progress you shall have made toward
perfecting the plan here offered for your consideration and care.

Believing that an acquaintance with the names of the officers of the several Abolition
Societies, would facilitate that friendly correspondence which ought always to be
preserved between our various associations, we request that you would send, to the
next, and to every future Convention, an accurate list of all the officers of your Society,
for the time being, with the number of members of which it consists. And it would assist
that Convention in ascertaining the existing state of slavery in the United States, if you
were to forward to them an exact account of the persons who have been liberated by
the agency of your Society, and of those who may be considered as signal instances of
the relief that you have afforded; and, also, a statement of the number of free blacks in
your state, their property, employments, and moral conduct.

As a knowledge of what has been done, and of that success which has attended the
efforts of humanity, will cherish the hope of benevolence, and stimulate to further
exertion, we trust that you will be of opinion with us, that it would be highly useful to
procure correct reports of all such trials, and decisions of courts of judicature,
respecting slavery, a knowledge of which may be subservient to the cause of abolition,
and to transmit them to the next, or to any future Convention.

It cannot have escaped your observation, how many persons there are who continue
the hateful practice of enslaving their fellow men, and who acquiesce in the sophistry of
the advocates of that practice, merely from want of reflection, and from an habitual
attention to their own immediate interest. If to such were often applied the force of
reason, and the persuasion of eloquence, they might be awakened to a sense of their
injustice, and be startled with horror at the enormity of their conduct. To produce so
desirable a change in sentiment, as well as practice, we recommend to you the
instituting of annual, or other periodical, discourses, or orations, to be delivered in
public, on the subject of slavery, and means of its abolition.

We cannot forbear expressing to you our earnest desire, that you will continue, without
ceasing, to endeavour, by every method in your power which can promise any success,
to procure, either an absolute repeal of all the laws in your state, which countenance
slavery, or such an amelioration of them as will gradually produce an entire abolition.
Yet, even should that greater end be happily attained, it cannot put a period to the
necessity of further labor. The education of the emancipated, the noblest and most
arduous task which we have to perform, will require all our wisdom and virtue, and the

constant exercise of the greatest skill and discretion. When we have broken his chains,
and restored the African to the enjoyment of his rights, the great work of justice and
benevolence is not accomplished—The new born citizen must receive that instruction,
and those powerful impressions of moral and religious truth, which will render him
capable and desirous of fulfilling the various duties he owes to himself and to his
country. By educating some in the higher branches of science, and all in the useful
parts of learning, and in the precepts of religion and morality, we shall not only do away
with the reproach and calumny so unjustly lavished upon us, but confound the enemies
of truth, by evincing that the unhappy sons of Africa, in spite of the degrading influence
of slavery, are in no wise inferior to the more fortunate inhabitants of Europe and
America.

As a mean of effectuating, in some degree, a design so virtuous and laudable, we
recommend to you to appoint a committee, annually, or for any other more convenient
period, to execute such plans, for the improvement of the condition and moral character
of the free blacks in your state, as you may think best adapted to your particular
situation.

By a decree of the National Convention of France, all the blacks and people of color,
within the territories of the French republic, are declared free, and entitled to an equal
participation of the rights of citizens of France. We have been informed that many
persons, of the above description, notwithstanding the decree in their favor, have been
brought from the West-India islands, by emigrants, into the United States, and are now
held as slaves,—We suggest to you the propriety, as well as the necessity, of making
enquiry into the subject, and of effecting their liberation, so far as may be found
consistent with the laws of your state.[2]

To the Society for promoting
the Abolition of Slavery, &c.

The Delegates from the several Abolition Societies in the United States inform you,
that, agreeably to the recommendation of the Convention of last year, they met in this
city on the first instant, and have, with much harmony and satisfaction, gone through
the business which came before them. They have the pleasure to assure you, that
every successive meeting evinces the importance of that union and concert which are
so happily established among the several Societies, in pursuing the great object of their
association.

But, although the exertions of this delegated Body have been hitherto attended, as we
hope, with considerable success—Although we are persuaded that no small progress
may be marked in the great business of emancipation; yet much remains to be done;
as long as seven hundred thousand of our Fellow Creatures, in the United States,
continue in a state of bondage, there appears a pressing necessity for the continuance
of our efforts; that we should keep our attention fixed upon the subject, and stand ready
to improve every favorable opportunity that may occur, to forward the interesting cause
in which we are engaged. We are therefore induced to continue the recommendation
heretofore made, that a similar meeting be annually held; and as convening at the
present season is attended with inconveniences, we propose, that the next Convention,
should assemble in this city, on the first Wednesday of May, in the year 1797.

It gives us pleasure to learn, from various reports which were laid before us, that most
of the recommendations made by the former Conventions, had received a considerable
degree of attention, from the several societies to whom they were addressed. But, as
they have not been uniformly and perfectly complied with, permit us to repeat the
request, so far as the same may be applicable to your society, that you transmit to the
next Convention, certified copies of all such laws, in any wise respecting slavery, as are
now in force, as have been repealed, or may hereafter be enacted—Correct lists of the
officers of your society, for the time being, and also the names of all your members, and
their places of abode—An account of the proceedings of your society, in relieving
Africans and others unlawfully held in bondage—A statement of the condition of the
blacks, both bond and free, in your state, with respect to the property of the free, and
the employment and moral conduct of all—Reports of such trials and decisions of the
Courts of Judicature, relative to Africans, as may have taken place—An account of the
endeavors which have been used to obtain a repeal or amelioration of the laws
respecting slavery—information concerning what has been done, in pursuance of the
recommendation of the last Convention, to establish periodical discourses on the
subject of slavery, and the means of its abolition—And finally, a report of the progress
you have made in extending to Africans the benefits of education. And we further
request, that whatever communications may be made to the next, or to any future
Convention, in consequence of the above recommendations, be presented in the form
of regular written reports, noticing in what manner and degree you have carried them
into effect, and how far your efforts have been ineffectual. By this means there will be
exhibited such a view of the state of each Society, as that the several reports may be
entered on the minutes of the Convention, who will thereby be better enabled to decide
on the propriety of making public such parts of these communications as may be best
adapted to advance the cause of truth and humanity.

And as very important advantages have, in several instances, resulted from accurate
registers being kept, by persons appointed for that purpose by certain of the Abolition
Societies in the United States, of such manumissions as have taken place; we do
earnestly recommend, should you not already have entered into this regulation, that
you make it hereafter an object of diligent attention. Such records may, in various ways,
subserve the cause of emancipation.

We learn, that the proposal made by the last Convention, respecting the blacks, and
people of color, who have emigrated from the West Indies, and now reside in the
United States, has, in many instances, given rise to difficulty; in order to remove which,
we have been induced to transmit to you the following extract from the twelfth article of
the Consular Convention between France and the United States; which by designating
the proper tribunals to whom application, in such cases, is to be made, will, we trust, be
found sufficient, in future, to direct your proceedings in this business, viz.

"That all differences and suits between French citizens in the United States, and
between American citizens in the dominions of France, shall be determined by the
respective Consuls and Vice Consuls either by a reference to arbitrators, or by a
summary judgment, and without costs; and that no officer of the country, civil or
military, shall interfere therein, or take any part whatever in the matter."

When we contemplate the odious nature and the immense magnitude of the evil which
you have associated to oppose, and the inestimable importance of the objects which
you are seeking to obtain, we cannot forbear to urge unremitted exertions, in pursuing

the great ends before you. We are persuaded you will not neglect any just means in
your power, which may tend to advance, either directly, or indirectly, the cause of equal
liberty;—And it gives us pleasure also to express our persuasion, that, in this pursuit,
much is still in your power. Although you cannot control Legislatures; and though, when
you plead the cause of humanity, they will not, at all times, listen to you; yet there are
other means to be used, perhaps, more effectual—You can do much, by directing your
efforts to the conviction of individuals—by diffusing proper publications amongst them,
and by presenting the evils of slavery in various forms to their minds.[3]

The following was inserted in the Address to the Pennsylvania
Abolition Society.

And as precise information, on this subject, cannot be too generally diffused, we
request you to collect all possible intelligence relative to such blacks and people of
color in the United States as are made Citizens of the French Republic, by the decree
of the National Convention, of the sixteenth Pluviose, second year of the republic, and
transmit the same to all the other Abolition Societies in the United States.

Nor can we suppose, it would be an effort altogether ineffectual in favor of liberty, were
its friends, throughout the United States, in all cases where it is practicable, to display a
marked preference of such commodities, as are of the culture or manufacture of
freemen, to those which are cultivated or manufactured by slaves—In this way, every
individual may discountenance oppression, and bear testimony against a practice,
which is still suffered to remain the disgrace of our land.

We have thought proper to address the free Africans and other free people of color in
the United States, on various subjects, which we believe nearly to concern their interest
and happiness. We have directed copies of this address to be transmitted to you and
request you to distribute the same, in your State, in such manner as you may judge
best calculated to promote its design.

We cannot conclude, without calling your attention, in a particular manner, to the
necessity of appointing such of your members to represent you in the Convention, as
will be punctually attentive to the duties of their appointment. We are sorry to observe,
that there is some ground of complaint, on this subject; but we trust, that, in future,
such a full representation will appear, as will give encreasing encouragement, energy
and success to our united endeavors in the great cause of human happiness.

Copies of our proceedings will be laid before you; from which we hope, you will derive
satisfaction, and perceive the importance of the several objects which we have
recommended to your attention.[4]

To the Society for promoting the
Abolition of Slavery.

To inform you of our proceedings; to solicit your further advice and assistance; and to
request your special attention to the original object of our meetings, we now address