A Social History of the American Negro Benjamin Griffith Brawley 1378 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Social History of the
American Negro
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: A Social History of the American Negro

Author: Benjamin Griffith Brawley

Release date: April 1, 2004 [eBook #12101]
Most recently updated: October 28, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12101

Credits: Suzanne Shell, Leonard D Johnson and PG Distributed
Proofreaders

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SOCIAL
HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN NEGRO ***

A SOCIAL HISTORY
OF THE
American Negro
BEING

A HISTORY OF THE NEGRO PROBLEM
IN THE UNITED STATES

INCLUDING
A HISTORY AND STUDY OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

by BENJAMIN BRAWLEY
1921

TO THE MEMORY OF

NORWOOD PENROSE HALLOWELL

PATRIOT
1839-1914

These all died in faith, not having received
the promises, but having seen them afar off.

Norwood Penrose Hallowell was born in Philadelphia April 13, 1839. He
inherited the tradition of the Quakers and grew to manhood in a strong anti-
slavery atmosphere. The home of his father, Morris L. Hallowell—the

"House called Beautiful," in the phrase of Oliver Wendell Holmes—was a
haven of rest and refreshment for wounded soldiers of the Union Army, and
hither also, after the assault upon him in the Senate, Charles Sumner had
come for succor and peace. Three brothers in one way or another served the
cause of the Union, one of them, Edward N. Hallowell, succeeding Robert
Gould Shaw in the Command of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment of
Massachusetts Volunteers. Norwood Penrose Hallowell himself, a natural
leader of men, was Harvard class orator in 1861; twenty-five years later he
was the marshal of his class; and in 1896 he delivered the Memorial Day
address in Sanders Theater. Entering the Union Army with promptness in
April, 1861, he served first in the New England Guards, then as First
Lieutenant in the Twentieth Massachusetts, won a Captain's commission in
November, and within the next year took part in numerous engagements,
being wounded at Glendale and even more severely at Antietam. On April
17, 1863, he became Lieutenant-Colonel of the Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts,
and on May 30 Colonel of the newly organized Fifty-Fifth. Serving in the
investment of Fort Wagner, he was one of the first to enter the fort after its
evacuation. His wounds ultimately forced him to resign his commission,
and in November, 1863, he retired from the service. He engaged in business
in New York, but after a few years removed to Boston, where he became
eminent for his public spirit. He was one of God's noblemen, and to the last
he preserved his faith in the Negro whom he had been among the first to
lead toward the full heritage of American citizenship. He died April 11,
1914.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER I

THE COMING OF NEGROES TO
AMERICA

1. African Origins
2. The Negro in Spanish Exploration
3. Development of the Slave-Trade
4. Planting of Slavery in the Colonies
5. The Wake of the Slave-Ship

CHAPTER II

THE NEGRO IN THE COLONIES

1. Servitude and Slavery
2. The Indian, the Mulatto, and the Free Negro
3. First Effort toward Social Betterment
4. Early Insurrections

CHAPTER III

THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA

1. Sentiment in England and America
2. The Negro in the War
3. The Northwest Territory and the Constitution
4. Early Steps toward Abolition
5. Beginning of Racial Consciousness

CHAPTER IV

THE NEW WEST, THE SOUTH, AND
THE WEST INDIES

1. The Cotton-Gin, the New Southwest, and the First
Fugitive Slave Law
2. Toussaint L'Ouverture, Louisiana, and the Formal
Closing of the Slave-Trade
3. Gabriel's Insurrection and the Rise of the Negro
Problem

CHAPTER V

INDIAN AND NEGRO

1. Creek, Seminole, and Negro to 1817: The War of 1812
2. First Seminole War and the Treaties of Indian Spring
and Fort Moultrie
3. From the Treaty of Fort Moultrie to the Treaty of
Payne's Landing
4. Osceola and the Second Seminole War

CHAPTER VI

EARLY APPROACH TO THE NEGRO
PROBLEM

1. The Ultimate Problem and the Missouri Compromise
2. Colonization
3. Slavery

CHAPTER VII

THE NEGRO REPLY—I: REVOLT

1. Denmark Vesey's Insurrection
2. Nat Turner's Insurrection
3. The Amistad and Creole Cases

CHAPTER VIII

THE NEGRO REPLY—II:
ORGANIZATION AND AGITATION

1. Walker's "Appeal"
2. The Convention Movement
3. Sojourner Truth and Woman Suffrage

CHAPTER IX

LIBERIA

1. The Place and the People
2. History
(a) Colonization and Settlement
(b) The Commonwealth of Liberia
(c) The Republic of Liberia
3. International Relations
4. Economic and Social Conditions

CHAPTER X

THE NEGRO A NATIONAL ISSUE

1. Current Tendencies
2. The Challenge of the Abolitionists
3. The Contest

CHAPTER XI

SOCIAL PROGRESS, 1820-1860

CHAPTER XII

THE CIVIL WAR AND EMANCIPATION

CHAPTER XIII

THE ERA OF ENFRANCHISEMENT

1. The Problem
2. Meeting the Problem
3. Reaction: The Ku-Klux Klan
4. Counter-Reaction: The Negro Exodus
5. A Postscript on the War and Reconstruction

CHAPTER XIV

THE NEGRO IN THE NEW SOUTH

1. Political Life: Disfranchisement
2. Economic Life: Peonage
3. Social Life: Proscription, Lynching

CHAPTER XV

"THE VALE OF TEARS," 1890-1910

1. Current Opinion and Tendencies
2. Industrial Education: Booker T. Washington
3. Individual Achievement: The Spanish-American War
4. Mob Violence; Election Troubles; The Atlanta
Massacre
5. The Question of Labor
6. Defamation; Brownsville
7. The Dawn of a To-morrow

CHAPTER XVI

THE NEGRO IN THE NEW AGE

1. Character of the Period
2. Migration; East St. Louis
3. The Great War
4. High Tension: Washington, Chicago, Elaine
5. The Widening Problem

CHAPTER XVII

THE NEGRO PROBLEM

1. World Aspect
2. The Negro in American Life
3. Face to Face

PREFACE
In the following pages an effort is made to give fresh treatment to the
history of the Negro people in the United States, and to present this from a
distinct point of view, the social. It is now forty years since George W.
Williams completed his History of the Negro Race in America, and while
there have been many brilliant studies of periods or episodes since that
important work appeared, no one book has again attempted to treat the
subject comprehensively, and meanwhile the race has passed through some
of its most critical years in America. The more outstanding political phases
of the subject, especially in the period before the Civil War, have been
frequently considered; and in any account of the Negro people themselves
the emphasis has almost always been upon political and military features.
Williams emphasizes this point of view, and his study of legal aspects is not
likely soon to be superseded. A noteworthy point about the history of the
Negro, however, is that laws on the statute-books have not necessarily been
regarded, public opinion and sentiment almost always insisting on being
considered. It is necessary accordingly to study the actual life of the Negro
people in itself and in connection with that of the nation, and something like
this the present work endeavors to do. It thus becomes not only a Social
History of the race, but also the first formal effort toward a History of the
Negro Problem in America.
With this aim in mind, in view of the enormous amount of material, we
have found it necessary to confine ourselves within very definite limits. A
thorough study of all the questions relating to the Negro in the United States
would fill volumes, for sooner or later it would touch upon all the great
problems of American life. No attempt is made to perform such a task;
rather is it intended to fix attention upon the race itself as definitely as
possible. Even with this limitation there are some topics that might be
treated at length, but that have already been studied so thoroughly that no
very great modification is now likely to be made of the results obtained.

Such are many of the questions revolving around the general subject of
slavery. Wars are studied not so much to take note of the achievement of
Negro soldiers, vital as that is, as to record the effect of these events on the
life of the great body of people. Both wars and slavery thus become not
more than incidents in the history of the ultimate problem.
In view of what has been said, it is natural that the method of treatment
should vary with the different chapters. Sometimes it is general, as when we
touch upon the highways of American history. Sometimes it is intensive, as
in the consideration of insurrections and early effort for social progress; and
Liberia, as a distinct and much criticized experiment in government by
American Negroes, receives very special attention. For the first time also an
effort is now made to treat consecutively the life of the Negro people in
America for the last fifty years.
This work is the result of studies on which I have been engaged for a
number of years and which have already seen some light in A Short History
of the American Negro and The Negro in Literature and Art; and
acquaintance with the elementary facts contained in such books as these is
in the present work very largely taken for granted. I feel under a special
debt of gratitude to the New York State Colonization Society, which,
coöperating with the American Colonization Society and the Board of
Trustees of Donations for Education in Liberia, in 1920 gave me
opportunity for some study at first hand of educational and social conditions
on the West Coast of Africa; and most of all do I remember the courtesy and
helpfulness of Dr. E.C. Sage and Dr. J.H. Dillard in this connection. In
general I have worked independently of Williams, but any student of the
subject must be grateful to that pioneer, as well as to Dr. W.E.B. DuBois,
who has made contributions in so many ways. My obligations to such
scholarly dissertations as those by Turner and Russell are manifest, while to
Mary Stoughton Locke's Anti-Slavery in America—a model monograph—I
feel indebted more than to any other thesis. Within the last few years, of
course, the Crisis, the Journal of Negro History, and the Negro Year-Book
have in their special fields become indispensable, and to Dr. Carter G.
Woodson and Professor M.N. Work much credit is due for the faith which
has prompted their respective ventures. I take this occasion also to thank
Professor W.E. Dodd, of the University of Chicago, who from the time of
my entrance upon this field has generously placed at my disposal his
unrivaled knowledge of the history of the South; and as always I must be

grateful to my father, Rev. E.M. Brawley, for that stimulation and criticism
which all my life have been most valuable to me. Finally, the work has been
dedicated to the memory of a distinguished soldier, who, in his youth, in the
nation's darkest hour, helped to lead a struggling people to freedom and his
country to victory. It is now submitted to the consideration of all who are
interested in the nation's problems, and indeed in any effort that tries to
keep in mind the highest welfare of the country itself.
BENJAMIN BRAWLEY. Cambridge, January 1, 1921.

SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE
AMERICAN NEGRO

CHAPTER I
THE COMING OF NEGROES TO AMERICA

1. African Origins

An outstanding characteristic of recent years has been an increasing
recognition of the cultural importance of Africa to the world. From all that
has been written three facts are prominent: (1) That at some time early in
the Middle Ages, perhaps about the seventh century, there was a
considerable infiltration of Arabian culture into the tribes living below the
Sahara, something of which may to-day most easily be seen among such
people as the Haussas in the Soudan and the Mandingoes along the West
Coast; (2) That, whatever influences came in from the outside, there
developed in Africa an independent culture which must not be
underestimated; and (3) That, perhaps vastly more than has been supposed,
this African culture had to do with early exploration and colonization in
America. The first of these three facts is very important, but is now
generally accepted and need not here detain us. For the present purpose the
second and third demand more attention.
The development of native African art is a theme of never-ending
fascination for the ethnologist. Especially have striking resemblances
between Negro and Oceanian culture been pointed out. In political
organization as well as certain forms of artistic endeavor the Negro people
have achieved creditable results, and especially have they been honored as
the originators of the iron technique.1 It has further been shown that
fetichism, which is especially well developed along the West Coast and its
hinterland, is at heart not very different from the manitou beliefs of the
American Indians; and it is this connection that furnishes the key to some of
the most striking results of the researches of the latest and most profound
student of this and related problems.2

From the Soudan radiated a culture that was destined to affect Europe
and in course of time to extend its influence even beyond the Atlantic
Ocean. It is important to remember that throughout the early history of
Europe and up to the close of the fifteenth century the approach to the home
of the Negro was by land. The Soudan was thought to be the edge of the
then known world; Homer speaks of the Ethiopians as "the farthest
removed of men, and separated into two divisions." Later Greek writers
carry the description still further and speak of the two divisions as Eastern
and Western—the Eastern occupying the countries eastward of the Nile, and
the Western stretching from the western shores of that river to the Atlantic
Coast. "One of these divisions," says Lady Lugard, "we have to
acknowledge, was perhaps itself the original source of the civilization
which has through Egypt permeated the Western world.... When the history
of Negroland comes to be written in detail, it may be found that the
kingdoms lying toward the eastern end of the Soudan were the home of
races who inspired, rather than of races who received, the traditions of
civilization associated for us with the name of ancient Egypt."3
If now we come to America, we find the Negro influence upon the Indian
to be so strong as to call in question all current conceptions of American
archæology and so early as to suggest the coming of men from the Guinea
Coast perhaps even before the coming of Columbus.4 The first natives of
Africa to come were Mandingoes; many of the words used by the Indians in
their daily life appear to be not more than corruptions or adaptations of
words used by the tribes of Africa; and the more we study the remains of
those who lived in America before 1492, and the far-reaching influence of
African products and habits, the more must we acknowledge the strength of
the position of the latest thesis. This whole subject will doubtless receive
much more attention from scholars, but in any case it is evident that the
demands of Negro culture can no longer be lightly regarded or brushed
aside, and that as a scholarly contribution to the subject Wiener's work is of
the very highest importance.

2. The Negro in Spanish Exploration

When we come to Columbus himself, the accuracy of whose accounts
has so recently been questioned, we find a Negro, Pedro Alonso Niño, as

the pilot of one of the famous three vessels. In 1496 Niño sailed to Santo
Domingo and he was also with Columbus on his third voyage. With two
men, Cristóbal de la Guerra, who served as pilot, and Luís de la Guerra, a
Spanish merchant, in 1499 he planned what proved to be the first successful
commercial voyage to the New World.
The revival of slavery at the close of the Middle Ages and the beginning
of the system of Negro slavery were due to the commercial expansion of
Portugal in the fifteenth century. The very word Negro is the modern
Spanish and Portuguese form of the Latin niger. In 1441 Prince Henry sent
out one Gonzales, who captured three Moors on the African coast. These
men offered as ransom ten Negroes whom they had taken. The Negroes
were taken to Lisbon in 1442, and in 1444 Prince Henry regularly began the
European trade from the Guinea Coast. For fifty years his country enjoyed a
monopoly of the traffic. By 1474 Negroes were numerous in Spain, and
special interest attaches to Juan de Valladolid, probably the first of many
Negroes who in time came to have influence and power over their people
under the authority of a greater state. He was addressed as "judge of all the
Negroes and mulattoes, free or slaves, which are in the very loyal and noble
city of Seville, and throughout the whole archbishopric thereof." After 1500
there are frequent references to Negroes, especially in the Spanish West
Indies. Instructions to Ovando, governor of Hispaniola, in 1501, prohibited
the passage to the Indies of Jews, Moors, or recent converts, but authorized
him to take over Negro slaves who had been born in the power of
Christians. These orders were actually put in force the next year. Even the
restricted importation Ovando found inadvisable, and he very soon
requested that Negroes be not sent, as they ran away to the Indians, with
whom they soon made friends. Isabella accordingly withdrew her
permission, but after her death Ferdinand reverted to the old plan and in
1505 sent to Ovando seventeen Negro slaves for work in the copper-mines,
where the severity of the labor was rapidly destroying the Indians. In 1510
Ferdinand directed that fifty Negroes be sent immediately, and that more be
sent later; and in April of this year over a hundred were bought in the
Lisbon market. This, says Bourne,5 was the real beginning of the African
slave-trade to America. Already, however, as early as 1504, a considerable
number of Negroes had been introduced from Guinea because, as we are
informed, "the work of one Negro was worth more than that of four
Indians." In 1513 thirty Negroes assisted Balboa in building the first ships

made on the Pacific Coast of America. In 1517 Spain formally entered upon
the traffic, Charles V on his accession to the throne granting "license for the
introduction of Negroes to the number of four hundred," and thereafter
importation to the West Indies became a thriving industry. Those who came
in these early years were sometimes men of considerable intelligence,
having been trained as Mohammedans or Catholics. By 1518 Negroes were
at work in the sugar-mills in Hispaniola, where they seem to have suffered
from indulgence in drinks made from sugarcane. In 1521 it was ordered that
Negro slaves should not be employed on errands as in general these tended
to cultivate too close acquaintance with the Indians. In 1522 there was a
rebellion on the sugar plantations in Hispaniola, primarily because the
services of certain Indians were discontinued. Twenty Negroes from the
Admiral's mill, uniting with twenty others who spoke the same language,
killed a number of Christians. They fled and nine leagues away they killed
another Spaniard and sacked a house. One Negro, assisted by twelve Indian
slaves, also killed nine other Christians. After much trouble the Negroes
were apprehended and several of them hanged. It was about 1526 that
Negroes were first introduced within the present limits of the United States,
being brought to a colony near what later became Jamestown, Va. Here the
Negroes were harshly treated and in course of time they rose against their
oppressors and fired their houses. The settlement was broken up, and the
Negroes and their Spanish companions returned to Hispaniola, whence they
had come. In 1540, in Quivira, in Mexico, there was a Negro who had taken
holy orders; and in 1542 there were established at Guamanga three
brotherhoods of the True Cross of Spaniards, one being for Indians and one
for Negroes.
The outstanding instance of a Negro's heading in exploration is that of
Estévanico (or Estévanillo, or Estévan, that is, Stephen), one of the four
survivors of the ill-fated expedition of De Narvaez, who sailed from Spain,
June 17, 1527. Having returned to Spain after many years of service in the
New World, Pamfilo de Narvaez petitioned for a grant, and accordingly the
right to conquer and colonize the country between the Rio de las Palmas, in
eastern Mexico, and Florida was accorded him.6 His force originally
consisted of six hundred soldiers and colonists. The whole conduct of the
expedition—incompetent in the extreme—furnished one of the most
appalling tragedies of early exploration in America. The original number of
men was reduced by half by storms and hurricanes and desertions in Santo

Domingo and Cuba, and those who were left landed in April, 1528, near the
entrance to Tampa Bay, on the west coast of Florida. One disaster followed
another in the vicinity of Pensacola Bay and the mouth of the Mississippi
until at length only four men survived. These were Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de
Vaca; Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, a captain of infantry; Alonzo del
Castillo Maldonado; and Estévanico, who had originally come from the
west coast of Morocco and who was a slave of Dorantes. These men had
most remarkable adventures in the years between 1528 and 1536, and as a
narrative of suffering and privation Cabeza de Vaca's Journal has hardly an
equal in the annals of the continent. Both Dorantes and Estévanico were
captured, and indeed for a season or two all four men were forced to
sojourn among the Indians. They treated the sick, and with such success did
they work that their fame spread far and wide among the tribes. Crowds
followed them from place to place, showering presents upon them. With
Alonzo de Castillo, Estévanico sojourned for a while with the Yguazes, a
very savage tribe that killed its own male children and bought those of
strangers. He at length escaped from these people and spent several months
with the Avavares. He afterwards went with De Vaca to the Maliacones,
only a short distance from the Avavares, and still later he accompanied
Alonzo de Castillo in exploring the country toward the Rio Grande. He was
unexcelled as a guide who could make his way through new territory. In
1539 he went with Fray Marcos of Nice, the Father Provincial of the
Franciscan order in New Spain, as a guide to the Seven Cities of Cibola, the
villages of the ancestors of the present Zuñi Indians in western New
Mexico. Preceding Fray Marcos by a few days and accompanied by natives
who joined him on the way, he reached Háwikuh, the southern-most of the
seven towns. Here he and all but three of his Indian followers were killed.

3. Development of the Slave-Trade

Portugal and Spain having demonstrated that the slave-trade was
profitable, England also determined to engage in the traffic; and as early as
1530 William Hawkins, a merchant of Plymouth, visited the Guinea Coast
and took away a few slaves. England really entered the field, however, with
the voyage in 1562 of Captain John Hawkins, son of William, who in
October of this year also went to the coast of Guinea. He had a fleet of three
ships and one hundred men, and partly by the sword and partly by other

means he took three hundred or more Negroes, whom he took to Santo
Domingo and sold profitably.7 He was richly laden going homeward and
some of his stores were seized by Spanish vessels. Hawkins made two other
voyages, one in 1564, and another, with Drake, in 1567. On his second
voyage he had four armed ships, the largest being the Jesus, a vessel of
seven hundred tons, and a force of one hundred and seventy men.
December and January (1564-5) he spent in picking up freight, and by
sickness and fights with the Negroes he lost many of his men. Then at the
end of January he set out for the West Indies. He was becalmed for twenty-
one days, but he arrived at the Island of Dominica March 9. He traded along
the Spanish coasts and on his return to England he touched at various points
in the West Indies and sailed along the coast of Florida. On his third voyage
he had five ships. He himself was again in command of the Jesus, while
Drake was in charge of the Judith, a little vessel of fifty tons. He got
together between four and five hundred Negroes and again went to
Dominica. He had various adventures and at last was thrown by a storm on
the coast of Mexico. Here after three days he was attacked by a Spanish
fleet of twelve vessels, and all of his ships were destroyed except the Judith
and another small vessel, the Minion, which was so crowded that one
hundred men risked the dangers on land rather than go to sea with her. On
this last voyage Hawkins and Drake had among their companions the Earls
of Pembroke and Leicester, who were then, like other young Elizabethans,
seeking fame and fortune. It is noteworthy that in all that he did Hawkins
seems to have had no sense of cruelty or wrong. He held religious services
morning and evening, and in the spirit of the later Cromwell he enjoined
upon his men to "serve God daily, love one another, preserve their victuals,
beware of fire, and keep good company." Queen Elizabeth evidently
regarded the opening of the slave-trade as a worthy achievement, for after
his second voyage she made Hawkins a knight, giving him for a crest the
device of a Negro's head and bust with the arms securely bound.
France joined in the traffic in 1624, and then Holland and Denmark, and
the rivalry soon became intense. England, with her usual aggressiveness,
assumed a commanding position, and, much more than has commonly been
supposed, the Navigation Ordinance of 1651 and the two wars with the
Dutch in the seventeenth century had as their basis the struggle for
supremacy in the slave-trade. The English trade proper began with the
granting of rights to special companies, to one in 1618, to another in 1631,

and in 1662 to the "Company of Royal Adventurers," rechartered in 1672 as
the "Royal African Company," to which in 1687 was given the exclusive
right to trade between the Gold Coast and the British colonies in America.
James, Duke of York, was interested in this last company, and it agreed to
supply the West Indies with three thousand slaves annually. In 1698, on
account of the incessant clamor of English merchants, the trade was opened
generally, and any vessel carrying the British flag was by act of Parliament
permitted to engage in it on payment of a duty of 10 per cent on English
goods exported to Africa. New England immediately engaged in the traffic,
and vessels from Boston and Newport went forth to the Gold Coast laden
with hogsheads of rum. In course of time there developed a three-cornered
trade by which molasses was brought from the West Indies to New England,
made into rum to be taken to Africa and exchanged for slaves, the slaves in
turn being brought to the West Indies or the Southern colonies.8 A slave
purchased for one hundred gallons of rum worth £10 brought from £20 to
£50 when offered for sale in America.9 Newport soon had twenty-two still
houses, and even these could not satisfy the demand. England regarded the
slave-trade as of such importance that when in 1713 she accepted the Peace
of Utrecht she insisted on having awarded to her for thirty years the
exclusive right to transport slaves to the Spanish colonies in America. When
in the course of the eighteenth century the trade became fully developed,
scores of vessels went forth each year to engage in it; but just how many
slaves were brought to the present United States and how many were taken
to the West Indies or South America, it is impossible to say. In 1726 the
three cities of London, Bristol, and Liverpool alone had 171 ships engaged
in the traffic, and the profits were said to warrant a thousand more, though
such a number was probably never reached so far as England alone was
concerned.10

4. Planting of Slavery in the Colonies

It is only for Virginia that we can state with definiteness the year in
which Negro slaves were first brought to an English colony on the
mainland. When legislation on the subject of slavery first appears
elsewhere, slaves are already present. "About the last of August (1619),"
says John Rolfe in John Smith's Generall Historie, "came in a Dutch man of

warre, that sold us twenty Negars." These Negroes were sold into servitude,
and Virginia did not give statutory recognition to slavery as a system until
1661, the importations being too small to make the matter one of
importance. In this year, however, an act of assembly stated that Negroes
were "incapable of making satisfaction for the time lost in running away by
addition of time"; 11 and thus slavery gained a firm place in the oldest of the
colonies.
Negroes were first imported into Massachusetts from Barbadoes a year or
two before 1638, but in John Winthrop's Journal, under date February 26 of
this year, we have positive evidence on the subject as follows: "Mr. Pierce
in the Salem ship, the Desire, returned from the West Indies after seven
months. He had been at Providence, and brought some cotton, and tobacco,
and Negroes, etc., from thence, and salt from Tertugos. Dry fish and strong
liquors are the only commodities for those parts. He met there two men-of-
war, sent forth by the lords, etc., of Providence with letters of mart, who had
taken divers prizes from the Spaniard and many Negroes." It was in 1641
that there was passed in Massachusetts the first act on the subject of slavery,
and this was the first positive statement in any of the colonies with
reference to the matter. Said this act: "There shall never be any bond
slavery, villeinage, nor captivity among us, unless it be lawful captives,
taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are
sold to us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which
the law of God established in Israel requires." This article clearly
sanctioned slavery. Of the three classes of persons referred to, the first was
made up of Indians, the second of white people under the system of
indenture, and the third of Negroes. In this whole matter, as in many others,
Massachusetts moved in advance of the other colonies. The first definitely
to legalize slavery, in course of time she became also the foremost
representative of sentiment against the system. In 1646 one John Smith
brought home two Negroes from the Guinea Coast, where we are told he
"had been the means of killing near a hundred more." The General Court,
"conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness
against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing," ordered that the
Negroes be sent at public expense to their native country.12 In later cases,
however, Massachusetts did not find herself able to follow this precedent. In
general in these early years New England was more concerned about
Indians than about Negroes, as the presence of the former in large numbers

was a constant menace, while Negro slavery had not yet assumed its most
serious aspects.
In New York slavery began under the Dutch rule and continued under the
English. Before or about 1650 the Dutch West India Company brought
some Negroes to New Netherland. Most of these continued to belong to the
company, though after a period of labor (under the common system of
indenture) some of the more trusty were permitted to have small farms,
from the produce of which they made return to the company. Their children,
however, continued to be slaves. In 1664 New Netherland became New
York. The next year, in the code of English laws that was drawn up, it was
enacted that "no Christian shall be kept in bond slavery, villeinage, or
captivity, except who shall be judged thereunto by authority, or such as
willingly have sold or shall sell themselves." As at first there was some
hesitancy about making Negroes Christians, this act, like the one in
Massachusetts, by implication permitted slavery.
It was in 1632 that the grant including what is now the states of Maryland
and Delaware was made to George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore. Though
slaves are mentioned earlier, it was in 1663-4 that the Maryland Legislature
passed its first enactment on the subject of slavery. It was declared that "all
Negroes and other slaves within this province, and all Negroes and other
slaves to be hereinafter imported into this province, shall serve during life;
and all children born of any Negro or other slave, shall be slaves as their
fathers were, for the term of their lives."
In Delaware and New Jersey the real beginnings of slavery are unusually
hazy. The Dutch introduced the system in both of these colonies. In the laws
of New Jersey the word slaves occurs as early as 1664, and acts for the
regulation of the conduct of those in bondage began with the practical union
of the colony with New York in 1702. The lot of the slave was somewhat
better here than in most of the colonies. Although the system was in
existence in Delaware almost from the beginning of the colony, it did not
receive legal recognition until 1721, when there was passed an act
providing for the trial of slaves in a special court with two justices and six
freeholders.
As early as 1639 there are incidental reference to Negroes in
Pennsylvania, and there are frequent references after this date.13 In this
colony there were strong objections to the importing of Negroes in spite of

the demand for them. Penn in his charter to the Free Society of Traders in
1682 enjoined upon the members of this company that if they held black
slaves these should be free at the end of fourteen years, the Negroes then to
become the company's tenants.14 In 1688 there originated in Germantown a
protest against Negro slavery that was "the first formal action ever taken
against the barter in human flesh within the boundaries of the United
States." 15 Here a small company of Germans was assembled April 18,
1688, and there was drawn up a document signed by Garret Hendericks,
Franz Daniel Pastorius, Dirck Op den Graeff, and Abraham Op den Graeff.
The protest was addressed to the monthly meeting of the Quakers about to
take place in Lower Dublin. The monthly meeting on April 30 felt that it
could not pretend to take action on such an important matter and referred it
to the quarterly meeting in June. This in turn passed it on to the yearly
meeting, the highest tribunal of the Quakers. Here it was laid on the table,
and for the next few years nothing resulted from it. About 1696, however,
opposition to slavery on the part of the Quakers began to be active. In the
colony at large before 1700 the lot of the Negro was regularly one of
servitude. Laws were made for servants, white or black, and regulations and
restrictions were largely identical. In 1700, however, legislation began more
definitely to fix the status of the slave. In this year an act of the legislature
forbade the selling of Negroes out of the province without their consent, but
in other ways it denied the personality of the slave. This act met further
formal approval in 1705, when special courts were ordained for the trial and
punishment of slaves, and when importation from Carolina was forbidden
on the ground that it made trouble with the Indians nearer home. In 1700 a
maximum duty of 20s. was placed on each Negro imported, and in 1705
this was doubled, there being already some competition with white labor. In
1712 the Assembly sought to prevent importation altogether by a duty of
£20 a head. This act was repealed in England, and a duty of £5 in 1715 was
also repealed. In 1729, however, the duty was fixed at £2, at which figure it
remained for a generation.
It was almost by accident that slavery was officially recognized in
Connecticut in 1650. The code of laws compiled for the colony in this year
was especially harsh on the Indians. It was enacted that certain of them who
incurred the displeasure of the colony might be made to serve the person
injured or "be shipped out and exchanged for Negroes." In 1680 the
governor of the colony informed the Board of Trade that "as for blacks

there came sometimes three or four in a year from Barbadoes, and they are
usually sold at the rate of £22 apiece." These people were regarded rather as
servants than as slaves, and early legislation was mainly in the line of police
regulations designed to prevent their running away.
In 1652 it was enacted in Rhode Island that all slaves brought into the
colony should be set free after ten years of service. This law was not
designed, as might be supposed, to restrict slavery. It was really a step in the
evolution of the system, and the limit of ten years was by no means
observed. "The only legal recognition of the law was in the series of acts
beginning January 4, 1703, to control the wandering of African slaves and
servants, and another beginning in April, 1708, in which the slave-trade was
indirectly legalized by being taxed."16 "In course of time Rhode Island
became the greatest slave-trader in the country, becoming a sort of clearing-
house for the other colonies."17
New Hampshire, profiting by the experience of the neighboring colony of
Massachusetts, deemed it best from the beginning to discourage slavery.
There were so few Negroes in the colony as to form a quantity practically
negligible. The system was recognized, however, an act being passed in
1714 to regulate the conduct of slaves, and another four years later to
regulate that of masters.
In North Carolina, even more than in most of the colonies, the system of
Negro slavery was long controlled by custom rather than by legal
enactment. It was recognized by law in 1715, however, and police
regulations to govern the slaves were enacted. In South Carolina the history
of slavery is particularly noteworthy. The natural resources of this colony
offered a ready home for the system, and the laws here formulated were as
explicit as any ever enacted. Slaves were first imported from Barbadoes,
and their status received official confirmation in 1682. By 1720 the number
had increased to 12,000, the white people numbering only 9,000. By 1698
such was the fear from the preponderance of the Negro population that a
special act was passed to encourage white immigration. Legislation "for the
better ordering of slaves" was passed in 1690, and in 1712 the first regular
slave law was enacted. Once before 1713, the year of the Assiento Contract
of the Peace of Utrecht, and several times after this date, prohibitive duties
were placed on Negroes to guard against their too rapid increase. By 1734,
however, importation had again reached large proportions; and in 1740, in

consequence of recent insurrectionary efforts, a prohibitive duty several
times larger than the previous one was placed upon Negroes brought into
the province.
The colony of Georgia was chartered in 1732 and actually founded the
next year. Oglethorpe's idea was that the colony should be a refuge for
persecuted Christians and the debtor classes of England. Slavery was
forbidden on the ground that Georgia was to defend the other English
colonies from the Spaniards on the South, and that it would not be able to
do this if like South Carolina it dissipated its energies in guarding Negro
slaves. For years the development of Georgia was slow, and the prosperous
condition of South Carolina constantly suggested to the planters that "the
one thing needful" for their highest welfare was slavery. Again and again
were petitions addressed to the trustees, George Whitefield being among
those who most urgently advocated the innovation. Moreover, Negroes
from South Carolina were sometimes hired for life, and purchases were
openly made in Savannah. It was not until 1749, however, that the trustees
yielded to the request. In 1755 the legislature passed an act that regulated
the conduct of the slaves, and in 1765 a more regular code was adopted.
Thus did slavery finally gain a foothold in what was destined to become one
of the most important of the Southern states.
For the first fifty or sixty years of the life of the colonies the introduction
of Negroes was slow; the system of white servitude furnished most of the
labor needed, and England had not yet won supremacy in the slave-trade. It
was in the last quarter of the seventeenth century that importations began to
be large, and in the course of the eighteenth century the numbers grew by
leaps and bounds. In 1625, six years after the first Negroes were brought to
the colony, there were in Virginia only 23 Negroes, 12 male, 11 female. 18
In 1659 there were 300; but in 1683 there were 3,000 and in 1708, 12,000.
In 1680 Governor Simon Bradstreet reported to England with reference to
Massachusetts that "no company of blacks or slaves" had been brought into
the province since its beginning, for the space of fifty years, with the
exception of a small vessel that two years previously, after a twenty months'
voyage to Madagascar, had brought hither between forty and fifty Negroes,
mainly women and children, who were sold for £10, £15, and £20 apiece;
occasionally two or three Negroes were brought from Barbadoes or other
islands, and altogether there were in Massachusetts at the time not more
than 100 or 120.

The colonists were at first largely opposed to the introduction of slavery,
and numerous acts were passed prohibiting it in Virginia, Massachusetts,
and elsewhere; and in Georgia, as we have seen, it had at first been
expressly forbidden. English business men, however, had no scruples about
the matter. About 1663 a British Committee on Foreign Plantations declared
that "black slaves are the most useful appurtenances of a plantation," 19 and
twenty years later the Lords Commissioners of Trade stated that "the
colonists could not possibly subsist" without an adequate supply of slaves.
Laws passed in the colonies were regularly disallowed by the crown, and
royal governors were warned that the colonists would not be permitted to
"discourage a traffic so beneficial to the nation." Before 1772 Virginia
passed not less than thirty-three acts looking toward the prohibition of the
importation of slaves, but in every instance the act was annulled by
England. In the far South, especially in South Carolina, we have seen that
there were increasingly heavy duties. In spite of all such efforts for
restriction, however, the system of Negro slavery, once well started,
developed apace.
In two colonies not among the original thirteen but important in the later
history of the United States, Negroes were present at a very early date, in
the Spanish colony of Florida from the very first, and in the French colony
of Louisiana as soon as New Orleans really began to grow. Negroes
accompanied the Spaniards in their voyages along the South Atlantic coast
early in the sixteenth century, and specially trained Spanish slaves assisted
in the founding of St. Augustine in 1565. The ambitious schemes in France
of the great adventurer, John Law, and especially the design of the
Mississippi Company (chartered 1717) included an agreement for the
importation into Louisiana of six thousand white persons and three
thousand Negroes, the Company having secured among other privileges the
exclusive right to trade with the colony for twenty-five years and the
absolute ownership of all mines in it. The sufferings of some of the white
emigrants from France—the kidnapping, the revenge, and the chicanery that
played so large a part—all make a story complete in itself. As for the
Negroes, it was definitely stipulated that these should not come from
another French colony without the consent of the governor of that colony.
The contract had only begun to be carried out when Law's bubble burst.
However, in June, 1721, there were 600 Negroes in Louisiana; in 1745 the
number had increased to 2020. The stories connected with these people are

as tragic and wildly romantic as are most of the stories in the history of
Louisiana. In fact, this colony from the very first owed not a little of its
abandon and its fascination to the mysticism that the Negroes themselves
brought from Africa. In the midst of much that is apocryphal one or two
events or episodes stand out with distinctness. In 1729, Perier, governor at
the time, testified with reference to a small company of Negroes who had
been sent against the Indians as follows: "Fifteen Negroes in whose hands
we had put weapons, performed prodigies of valor. If the blacks did not cost
so much, and if their labors were not so necessary to the colony, it would be
better to turn them into soldiers, and to dismiss those we have, who are so
bad and so cowardly that they seem to have been manufactured purposely
for this colony20." Not always, however, did the Negroes fight against the
Indians. In 1730 some representatives of the powerful Banbaras had an
understanding with the Chickasaws by which the latter were to help them in
exterminating all the white people and in setting up an independent
republic21. They were led by a strong and desperate Negro named Samba.
As a result of this effort for freedom Samba and seven of his companions
were broken on the wheel and a woman was hanged. Already, however,
there had been given the suggestion of the possible alliance in the future of
the Indian and the Negro. From the very first also, because of the freedom
from restraint of all the elements of population that entered into the life of
the colony, there was the beginning of that mixture of the races which was
later to tell so vitally on the social life of Louisiana and whose effects are so
readily apparent even to-day.

5. The Wake of the Slave-Ship

Thus it was that Negroes came to America. Thus it was also, we might
say, that the Negro Problem came, though it was not for decades, not until
the budding years of American nationality, that the ultimate reaches of the
problem were realized. Those who came were by no means all of exactly
the same race stock and language. Plantations frequently exhibited a variety
of customs, and sometimes traditional enemies became brothers in
servitude. The center of the colonial slave-trade was the African coast for
about two hundred miles east of the great Niger River. From this
comparatively small region came as many slaves as from all the rest of
Africa together. A number of those who came were of entirely different race

stock from the Negroes; some were Moors, and a very few were Malays
from Madagascar.
The actual procuring of the slaves was by no means as easy a process as
is sometimes supposed. In general the slave mart brought out the most
vicious passions of all who were in any way connected with the traffic. The
captain of a vessel had to resort to various expedients to get his cargo. His
commonest method was to bring with him a variety of gay cloth, cheap
ornaments, and whiskey, which he would give in exchange for slaves
brought to him. His task was most simple when a chieftain of one tribe
brought to him several hundred prisoners of war. Ordinarily, however, the
work was more toilsome, and kidnapping a favorite method, though
individuals were sometimes enticed on vessels. The work was always
dangerous, for the natives along the slave-coast soon became suspicious.
After they had seen some of their tribesmen taken away, they learned not to
go unarmed while a slave-vessel was on the coast, and very often there
were hand-to-hand encounters. It was not long before it began to be
impressed upon those interested in the trade that it was not good business to
place upon the captain of a vessel the responsibility of getting together three
or four hundred slaves, and that it would be better if he could find his cargo
waiting for him when he came. Thus arose the so-called factories, which
were nothing more than warehouses. Along the coast were placed small
settlements of Europeans, whose business it was to stimulate slave-hunting
expeditions, negotiate for slaves brought in, and see that they were kept
until the arrival of the ships. Practically every nation engaged in the traffic
planted factories of this kind along the West Coast from Cape Verde to the
equator; and thus it was that this part of Africa began to be the most
flagrantly exploited region in the world; thus whiskey and all the other
vices of civilization began to come to a simple and home-loving people.
Once on board the slaves were put in chains two by two. When the ship
was ready to start, the hold of the vessel was crowded with moody and
unhappy wretches who most often were made to crouch so that their knees
touched their chins, but who also were frequently made to lie on their sides
"spoon-fashion." Sometimes the space between floor and ceiling was still
further diminished by the water-barrels; on the top of these barrels boards
were placed, on the boards the slaves had to lie, and in the little space that
remained they had to subsist as well as they could. There was generally
only one entrance to the hold, and provision for only the smallest amount of

air through the gratings on the sides. The clothing of a captive, if there was
any at all, consisted of only a rag about the loins. The food was half-rotten
rice, yams, beans, or soup, and sometimes bread and meat; the cooking was
not good, nor was any care taken to see that all were fed. Water was always
limited, a pint a day being a generous allowance; frequently no more than a
gill could be had. The rule was to bring the slaves from the hold twice a day
for an airing, about eight o'clock in the morning and four in the afternoon;
but this plan was not always followed. On deck they were made to dance by
the lash, and they were also forced to sing. Thus were born the sorrow-
songs, the last cry of those who saw their homeland vanish behind them—
forever.
Sometimes there were stern fights on board. Sometimes food was refused
in order that death might be hastened. When opportunity served, some
leaped overboard in the hope of being taken back to Africa. Throughout the
night the hold resounded with the moans of those who awoke from dreams
of home to find themselves in bonds. Women became hysterical, and both
men and women became insane. Fearful and contagious diseases broke out.
Smallpox was one of these. More common was ophthalmia, a frightful
inflammation of the eyes. A blind, and hence a worthless, slave was thrown
to the sharks. The putrid atmosphere, the melancholy, and the sudden
transition from heat to cold greatly increased the mortality, and frequently
when morning came a dead and a living slave were found shackled together.
A captain always counted on losing one-fourth of his cargo. Sometimes he
lost a great deal more.
Back on the shore a gray figure with strained gaze watched the ship fade
away—an old woman sadly typical of the great African mother. With her
vision she better than any one else perceived the meaning of it all. The men
with hard faces who came to buy and sell might deceive others, but not her.
In a great vague way she felt that something wrong had attacked the very
heart of her people. She saw men wild with the whiskey of the Christian
nations commit crimes undreamed of before. She did not like the coast
towns; the girl who went thither came not home again, and a young man
was lost to all that Africa held dear. In course of time she saw every native
craft despised, and instead of the fabric that her own fingers wove her
children yearned for the tinsel and the gewgaws of the trader. She cursed
this man, and she called upon all her spirits to banish the evil. But when at
last all was of no avail—when the strongest youth or the dearest maiden had

gone—she went back to her hut and ate her heart out in the darkness. She
wept for her children and would not be comforted because they were not.
Then slowly to the untutored mind somehow came the promise: "These are
they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and
made them white in the blood of the Lamb.... They shall hunger no more,
neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall
lead them unto living fountains of waters; and God shall wipe away all tears
from their eyes."
Footnote 1: (return)
Note article "Africa" in New International Encyclopedia, referring especially to
the studies of Von Luschan.

Footnote 2: (return)
Leo Wiener: Africa and the Discovery of America, Vol. I, Innes & Sons,
Philadelphia, 1920.

Footnote 3: (return)
A Tropical Dependency, James Nisbet & Co., Ltd., London, 1906, p. 17.

Footnote 4: (return)
See Wiener, I, 178.

Footnote 5: (return)
Spain in America, Vol. 3 in American Nation Series, p. 270.

Footnote 6: (return)
Frederick W. Hodge, 3, in Spanish Explorers in the Southern United States,
1528-1543, in "Original Narratives of Early American History," Scribner's, New
York, 1907. Both the Narrative of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca and the Narrative
of the Expedition of Coronado, by Pedro de Casteñada, are edited by Hodge,
with illuminating introductions.

Footnote 7: (return)
Edward E. Hale in Justin Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America,
III, 60.

Footnote 8: (return)
Bogart: Economic History, 72.

Footnote 9: (return)
Coman: Industrial History, 78.

Footnote 10: (return)
Ballagh: Slavery in Virginia, 12.

Footnote 11: (return)
Hening: Statutes, II, 26.

Footnote 12: (return)
Coffin: Slave Insurrections, 8.

Footnote 13: (return)
Turner: The Negro in Pennsylvania, 1.

Footnote 14: (return)
Ibid., 21.

Footnote 15: (return)
Faust: The German Element in the United States, Boston, 1909, I, 45.

Footnote 16: (return)
William T. Alexander: History of the Colored Race in America, New Orleans,
1887, p. 136.

Footnote 17: (return)
DuBois: Suppression of the Slave-Trade, 34.

Footnote 18: (return)
Virginia Magazine of History, VII, 364.

Footnote 19: (return)
Bogart: Economic History, 73.

Footnote 20: (return)
Gayarré: History of Louisiana, I, 435.

Footnote 21: (return)
Ibid., I, 440.

CHAPTER II
THE NEGRO IN THE COLONIES

The Negroes who were brought from Africa to America were brought
hither to work, and to work under compulsion; hence any study of their
social life in the colonial era must be primarily a study of their life under
the system of slavery, and of the efforts of individuals to break away from
the same.

1. Servitude and Slavery

For the antecedents of Negro slavery in America one must go back to the
system of indentured labor known as servitude. This has been defined as "a
legalized status of Indian, white, and Negro servants preceding slavery in
most, if not all, of the English mainland colonies."22 A study of servitude
will explain many of the acts with reference to Negroes, especially those
about intermarriage with white people. For the origins of the system one
must go back to social conditions in England in the seventeenth century.
While villeinage had been formally abolished in England at the middle of
the fourteenth century, it still lingered in remote places, and even if men
were not technically villeins they might be subjected to long periods of
service. By the middle of the fifteenth century the demand for wool had led
to the enclosure of many farms for sheep-raising, and accordingly to
distress on the part of many agricultural laborers. Conditions were not
improved early in the sixteenth century, and they were in fact made more
acute, the abolition of the monasteries doing away with many of the sources
of relief. Men out of work were thrown upon the highways and thus became
a menace to society. In 1564 the price of wheat was 19s. a quarter and
wages were 7d. a day. The situation steadily grew worse, and in 1610, while
wages were still the same, wheat was 35s. a quarter. Rents were constantly

rising, moreover, and many persons died from starvation. In the course of
the seventeenth century paupers and dissolute persons more and more filled
the jails and workhouses.
Meanwhile in the young colonies across the sea labor was scarce, and it
seemed to many an act of benevolence to bring from England persons who
could not possibly make a living at home and give them some chance in the
New World. From the very first, children, and especially young people
between the ages of twelve and twenty, were the most desired. The London
Company undertook to meet half of the cost of the transportation and
maintenance of children sent out by parish authorities, the understanding
being that it would have the service of the same until they were of age.23
The Company was to teach each boy a trade and when his freedom year
arrived was to give to each one fifty acres, a cow, some seed corn, tools,
and firearms. He then became the Company's tenant, for seven years more
giving to it one-half of his produce, at the end of which time he came into
full possession of twenty-five acres. After the Company collapsed
individuals took up the idea. Children under twelve years of age might be
bound for seven years, and persons over twenty-one for no more than four;
but the common term was five years.
Under this system fell servants voluntary and involuntary. Hundreds of
people, too poor to pay for their transportation, sold themselves for a
number of years to pay for the transfer. Some who were known as
"freewillers" had some days in which to dispose of themselves to the best
advantage in America; if they could not make satisfactory terms, they too
were sold to pay for the passage. More important from the standpoint of the
system itself, however, was the number of involuntary servants brought
hither. Political offenders, vagrants, and other criminals were thus sent to
the colonies, and many persons, especially boys and girls, were kidnapped
in the streets of London and "spirited" away. Thus came Irishmen or
Scotchmen who had incurred the ire of the crown, Cavaliers or Roundheads
according as one party or the other was out of power, and farmers who had
engaged in Monmouth's rebellion; and in the year 1680 alone it was
estimated that not less than ten thousand persons were "spirited" away from
England. It is easy to see how such a system became a highly profitable one
for shipmasters and those in connivance with them. Virginia objected to the
criminals, and in 1671 the House of Burgesses passed a law against the
importing of such persons, and the same was approved by the governor.

Seven years later, however, it was set aside for the transportation of political
offenders.
As having the status of an apprentice the servant could sue in court and
he was regularly allowed "freedom dues" at the expiration of his term. He
could not vote, however, could not bear weapons, and of course could not
hold office. In some cases, especially where the system was voluntary,
servants sustained kindly relations with their masters, a few even becoming
secretaries or tutors. More commonly, however, the lot of the indentured
laborer was a hard one, his food often being only coarse Indian meal, and
water mixed with molasses. The moral effect of the system was bad in the
fate to which it subjected woman and in the evils resulting from the sale of
the labor of children. In this whole connection, however, it is to be
remembered that the standards of the day were very different from those of
our own. The modern humanitarian impulse had not yet moved the heart of
England, and flogging was still common for soldiers and sailors, criminals
and children alike.
The first Negroes brought to the colonies were technically servants, and
generally as Negro slavery advanced white servitude declined. James II, in
fact, did whatever he could to hasten the end of servitude in order that
slavery might become more profitable. Economic forces were with him, for
while a slave varied in price from £10 to £50, the mere cost of transporting
a servant was from £6 to £10. "Servitude became slavery when to such
incidents as alienation, disfranchisement, whipping, and limited marriage
were added those of perpetual service and a denial of civil, juridical, marital
and property rights as well as the denial of the possession of children."24
Even after slavery was well established, however, white men and women
were frequently retained as domestic servants, and the system of servitude
did not finally pass in all of its phases before the beginning of the
Revolutionary War.
Negro slavery was thus distinctively an evolution. As the first Negroes
were taken by pirates, the rights of ownership could not legally be given to
those who purchased them; hence slavery by custom preceded slavery by
statute. Little by little the colonies drifted into the sterner system. The
transition was marked by such an act as that in Rhode Island, which in 1652
permitted a Negro to be bound for ten years. We have already referred to the
Act of Assembly in Virginia in 1661 to the effect that Negroes were

incapable of making satisfaction for time lost in running away by addition
of time. Even before it had become generally enacted or understood in the
colonies, however, that a child born of slave parents should serve for life, a
new question had arisen, that of the issue of a free person and a slave. This
led Virginia in 1662 to lead the way with an act declaring that the status of a
child should be determined by that of the mother,25 which act both gave to
slavery the sanction of law and made it hereditary. From this time forth
Virginia took a commanding lead in legislation; and it is to be remembered
that when we refer to this province we by no means have reference to the
comparatively small state of to-day, but to the richest and most populous of
the colonies. This position Virginia maintained until after the Revolutionary
War, and not only the present West Virginia but the great Northwest
Territory were included in her domain.
The slave had none of the ordinary rights of citizenship; in a criminal
case he could be arrested, tried, and condemned with but one witness
against him, and he could be sentenced without a jury. In Virginia in 1630
one Hugh Davis was ordered to be "soundly whipped before an assembly of
Negroes and others, for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and the
shame of Christians, by defiling his body in lying with a Negro."26 Just ten
years afterwards, in 1640, one Robert Sweet was ordered "to do penance in
church, according to the laws of England, for getting a Negro woman with
child, and the woman to be whipped."27 Thus from the very beginning the
intermixture of the races was frowned upon and went on all the same. By
the time, moreover, that the important acts of 1661 and 1662 had formally
sanctioned slavery, doubt had arisen in the minds of some Virginians as to
whether one Christian could legitimately hold another in bondage; and in
1667 it was definitely stated that the conferring of baptism did not alter the
condition of a person as to his bondage or freedom, so that masters, freed
from this doubt, could now "more carefully endeavor the propagation of
Christianity." In 1669 an "act about the casual killing of slaves" provided
that if any slave resisted his master and under the extremity of punishment
chanced to die, his death was not to be considered a felony and the master
was to be acquitted. In 1670 it was made clear that none but freeholders and
housekeepers should vote in the election of burgesses, and in the same year
provision was taken against the possible ownership of a white servant by a
free Negro, who nevertheless "was not debarred from buying any of his
own nation." In 1692 there was legislation "for the more speedy prosecution

of slaves committing capital crimes"; and this was reënacted in 1705, when
some provision was made for the compensation of owners and when it was
further declared that Negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves within the dominion
were "real estate" and "incapable in law to be witnesses in any cases
whatsoever"; and in 1723 there was an elaborate and detailed act "directing
the trial of slaves committing capital crimes, and for the more effectual
punishing conspiracies and insurrections of them, and for the better
government of Negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, bond or free." This last act
specifically stated that no slave should be set free upon any pretense
whatsoever "except for some meritorious services, to be adjudged and
allowed by the governor and council." All this legislation was soon found to
be too drastic and too difficult to enforce, and modification was inevitable.
This came in 1732, when it was made possible for a slave to be a witness
when another slave was on trial for a capital offense, and in 1744 this
provision was extended to civil cases as well. In 1748 there was a general
revision of all existing legislation, with special provision against attempted
insurrections.
Thus did Virginia pave the way, and more and more slave codes took on
some degree of definiteness and uniformity. Very important was the act of
1705, which provided that a slave might be inventoried as real estate. As
property henceforth there was nothing to prevent his being separated from
his family. Before the law he was no longer a person but a thing.

2. The Indian, the Mulatto, and the Free Negro

All along, it is to be observed, the problem of the Negro was complicated
by that of the Indian. At first there was a feeling that Indians were to be
treated not as Negroes but as on the same basis as Englishmen. An act in
Virginia of 1661-2 summed up this feeling in the provision that they were
not to be sold as servants for any longer time than English people of the
same age, and injuries done to them were to be duly remedied by the laws
of England. About the same time a Powhatan Indian sold for life was
ordered to be set free. An interesting enactment of 1670 attempted to give
the Indian an intermediate status between that of the Englishman and the
Negro slave, as "servants not being Christians, imported into the colony by
shipping" (i.e., Negroes) were to be slaves for their lives, but those that
came by land were to serve "if boys or girls until thirty years of age; if men

or women, twelve years and no longer." All such legislation, however, was
radically changed as a result of Nathaniel Bacon's rebellion of 1676, in
which the aid of the natives was invoked against the English governor.
Henceforth Indians taken in war became the slaves for life of their captors.
An elaborate act of 1682 summed up the new status, and Indians sold by
other Indians were to be "adjudged, deemed, and taken to be slaves, to all
intents and purposes, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary
notwithstanding." Indian women were to be "tithables,"28 and they were
required to pay levies just as Negro women. From this time forth
enactments generally included Indians along with Negroes, but of course
the laws placed on the statute books did not always bear close relation to
what was actually enforced, and in general the Indian was destined to be a
vanishing rather than a growing problem. Very early in the eighteenth
century, in connection with the wars between the English and the Spanish in
Florida, hundreds of Indians were shipped to the West Indies and some to
New England. Massachusetts in 1712 prohibited such importation, as the
Indians were "malicious, surly, and very ungovernable," and she was
followed to similar effect by Pennsylvania in 1712, by New Hampshire in
1714, and by Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1715.
If the Indian was destined to be a vanishing factor, the mulatto and the
free Negro most certainly were not. In spite of all the laws to prevent it, the
intermixture of the races increased, and manumission somehow also
increased. Sometimes a master in his will provided that several of his slaves
should be given their freedom. Occasionally a slave became free by reason
of what was regarded as an act of service to the commonwealth, as in the
case of one Will, slave belonging to Robert Ruffin, of the county of Surry in
Virginia, who in 1710 divulged a conspiracy.29 There is, moreover, on
record a case of an indentured Negro servant, John Geaween, who by his
unusual thrift in the matter of some hogs which he raised on the share
system with his master, was able as early as 1641 to purchase his own son
from another master, to the perfect satisfaction of all concerned.30 Of
special importance for some years were those persons who were
descendants of Negro fathers and indentured white mothers, and who at
first were of course legally free. By 1691 the problem had become acute in
Virginia. In this year "for prevention of that abominable mixture and
spurious issue, which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by
Negroes, mulattoes and Indians intermarrying with English or other white

women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another," it was
enacted that "for the time to come whatsoever English or other white man
or woman being free shall intermarry with a Negro, mulatto, or Indian man
or woman, bond or free, shall within three months after such marriage be
banished and removed from this dominion forever, and that the justices of
each respective county within this dominion make it their particular care
that this act be put in effectual execution."31 A white woman who became
the mother of a child by a Negro or mulatto was to be fined £15 sterling, in
default of payment was to be sold for five years, while the child was to be
bound in servitude to the church wardens until thirty years of age. It was
further provided that if any Negro or mulatto was set free, he was to be
transported from the country within six months of his manumission (which
enactment is typical of those that it was difficult to enforce and that after a
while were only irregularly observed). In 1705 it was enacted that no
"Negro, mulatto, or Indian shall from and after the publication of this act
bear any office ecclesiastical, civil or military, or be in any place of public
trust or power, within this her majesty's colony and dominion of Virginia";
and to clear any doubt that might arise as to who should be accounted a
mulatto, it was provided that "the child of an Indian, and the child,
grandchild, or great-grandchild of a Negro shall be deemed, accounted,
held, and taken to be a mulatto." It will be observed that while the act of
1670 said that "none but freeholders and housekeepers" could vote, this act
of 1705 did not specifically legislate against voting by a mulatto or a free
Negro, and that some such privilege was exercised for a while appears from
the definite provision in 1723 that "no free Negro, mulatto, or Indian,
whatsoever, shall hereafter have any vote at the election of burgesses, or
any other election whatsoever." In the same year it was provided that free
Negroes and mulattoes might be employed as drummers or trumpeters in
servile labor, but that they were not to bear arms; and all free Negroes
above sixteen years of age were declared tithable. In 1769, however, all free
Negro and mulatto women were exempted from levies as tithables, such
levies having proved to be burdensome and "derogatory to the rights of
freeborn subjects."
More than other colonies Maryland seems to have been troubled about
the intermixture of the races; certainly no other phase of slavery here
received so much attention. This was due to the unusual emphasis on white
servitude in the colony. In 1663 it was enacted that any freeborn woman

intermarrying with a slave should serve the master of the slave during the
life of her husband and that any children resulting from the union were also
to be slaves. This act was evidently intended to frighten the indentured
woman from such a marriage. It had a very different effect. Many masters,
in order to prolong the indenture of their white female servants, encouraged
them to marry Negro slaves. Accordingly a new law in 1681 threw the
responsibility not on the indentured woman but on the master or mistress; in
case a marriage took place between a white woman-servant and a slave, the
woman was to be free at once, any possible issue was to be free, and the
minister performing the ceremony and the master or mistress were to be
fined ten thousand pounds of tobacco. This did not finally dispose of the
problem, however, and in 1715, in response to a slightly different situation,
it was enacted that a white woman who became the mother of a child by a
free Negro father should become a servant for seven years, the father also a
servant for seven years, and the child a servant until thirty-one years of age.
Any white man who begot a Negro woman with child, whether a free
woman or a slave, was to undergo the same penalty as a white woman—a
provision that in course of time was notoriously disregarded. In 1717 the
problem was still unsettled, and in this year it was enacted that Negroes or
mulattoes of either sex intermarrying with white people were to be slaves
for life, except mulattoes born of white women, who were to serve for
seven years, and the white person so intermarrying also for seven years. It is
needless to say that with all these changing and contradictory provisions
many servants and Negroes did not even know what the law was. In 1728,
however, free mulatto women having illegitimate children by Negroes and
other slaves, and free Negro women having illegitimate children by white
men, and their issue, were subjected to the same penalties as in the former
act were provided against white women. Thus vainly did the colony of
Maryland struggle with the problem of race intermixture. Generally
throughout the South the rule in the matter of the child of the Negro father
and the indentured white mother was that the child should be bound in
servitude for thirty or thirty-one years.
In the North as well as in the South the intermingling of the blood of the
races was discountenanced. In Pennsylvania as early as 1677 a white
servant was indicted for cohabiting with a Negro. In 1698 the Chester
County court laid it down as a principle that the mingling of the races was
not to be allowed. In 1722 a woman was punished for promoting a secret

marriage between a white woman and a Negro; a little later the Assembly
received from the inhabitants of the province a petition inveighing against
cohabiting; and in 1725-6 a law was passed positively forbidding the
mixture of the races.32 In Massachusetts as early as 1705 and 1708
restraining acts to prevent a "spurious and mixt issue" ordered the sale of
offending Negroes and mulattoes out of the colony's jurisdiction, and
punished Christians who intermarried with them by a fine of £50. After the
Revolutionary War such marriages were declared void and the penalty of
£50 was still exacted, and not until 1843 was this act repealed. Thus was the
color-line, with its social and legal distinctions, extended beyond the
conditions of servitude and slavery, and thus early was an important phase
of the ultimate Negro Problem foreshadowed.
Generally then, in the South, in the colonial period, the free Negro could
not vote, could not hold civil office, could not give testimony in cases
involving white men, and could be employed only for fatigue duty in the
militia. He could not purchase white servants, could not intermarry with
white people, and had to be very circumspect in his relations with slaves.
No deprivation of privilege, however, relieved him of the obligation to pay
taxes. Such advantages as he possessed were mainly economic. The money
gained from his labor was his own; he might become skilled at a trade; he
might buy land; he might buy slaves;33 he might even buy his wife and
child if, as most frequently happened, they were slaves; and he might have
one gun with which to protect his home.34 Once in a long while he might
even find some opportunity for education, as when the church became the
legal warden of Negro apprentices. Frequently he found a place in such a
trade as that of the barber or in other personal service, and such work
accounted very largely for the fact that he was generally permitted to
remain in communities where technically he had no right to be. In the North
his situation was little better than in the South, and along economic lines
even harder. Everywhere his position was a difficult one. He was most
frequently regarded as idle and shiftless, and as a breeder of mischief; but if
he showed unusual thrift he might even be forced to leave his home and go
elsewhere. Liberty, the boon of every citizen, the free Negro did not
possess. For all the finer things of life—the things that make life worth
living—the lot that was his was only less hard than that of the slave.

3. First Effort for Social Betterment

If now we turn aside from laws and statutes and consider the ordinary life
and social intercourse of the Negro, we shall find more than one
contradiction, for in the colonial era codes affecting slaves and free Negroes
had to grope their way to uniformity. Especially is it necessary to
distinguish between the earlier and the later years of the period, for as early
as 1760 the liberalism of the Revolutionary era began to be felt. If we
consider what was strictly the colonial epoch, we may find it necessary to
make a division about the year 1705. Before this date the status of the
Negro was complicated by the incidents of the system of servitude; after it,
however, in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts alike, special
discrimination against him on account of race was given formal recognition.
By 1715 there were in Virginia 23,000 Negroes, and in all the colonies
58,850, or 14 per cent of the total population.35 By 1756, however, the
Negroes in Virginia numbered 120,156 and the white people but 173,316.36
Thirty-eight of the forty-nine counties had more Negro than white tithables,
and eleven of the counties had a Negro population varying from one-fourth
to one-half more than the white. A great many of the Negroes had only
recently been imported from Africa, and they were especially baffling to
their masters of course when they conversed in their native tongues. At first
only men were brought, but soon women came also, and the treatment
accorded these people varied all the way from occasional indulgence to the
utmost cruelty. The hours of work regularly extended from sunrise to
sunset, though corn-husking and rice-beating were sometimes continued
after dark, and overseers were almost invariably ruthless, often having a
share in the crops. Those who were house-servants would go about only
partially clad, and the slave might be marked or branded like one of the
lower animals; he was not thought to have a soul, and the law sought to
deprive him of all human attributes. Holiday amusement consisted largely
of the dances that the Negroes had brought with them, these being
accompanied by the beating of drums and the blowing of horns; and funeral
ceremonies featured African mummeries. For those who were criminal
offenders simple execution was not always considered severe enough; the
right hand might first be amputated, the criminal then hanged and his head
cut off, and his body quartered and the parts suspended in public places.

Sometimes the hanging was in chains, and several instances of burning are
on record. A master was regularly reimbursed by the government for a slave
legally executed, and in 1714 there was a complaint in South Carolina that
the treasury had become almost exhausted by such reimbursements. In
Massachusetts hanging was the worst legal penalty, but the obsolete
common-law punishment was revived in 1755 to burn alive a slave-woman
who had killed her master in Cambridge.37
The relations between the free Negro and the slave might well have given
cause for concern. Above what was after all only an artificial barrier spoke
the call of race and frequently of kindred. Sometimes at a later date jealousy
arose when a master employed a free Negro to work with his slaves, the one
receiving pay and the others laboring without compensation. In general,
however, the two groups worked like brothers, each giving the other the
benefit of any temporary advantage that it possessed. Sometimes the free
Negro could serve by reason of the greater freedom of movement that he
had, and if no one would employ him, or if, as frequently happened, he was
browbeaten and cheated out of the reward of his labor, the slave might
somehow see that he got something to eat. In a state of society in which the
relation of master and slave was the rule, there was of course little place for
either the free Negro or the poor white man. When the pressure became too
great the white man moved away; the Negro, finding himself everywhere
buffeted, in the colonial era at least had little choice but to work out his
salvation at home as well as he could. More and more character told, and if
a man had made himself known for his industry and usefulness, a legislative
act might even be passed permitting him to remain in the face of a hostile
law. Even before 1700 there were in Virginia families in which both parents
were free colored persons and in which every effort was made to bring up
the children in honesty and morality. When some prosperous Negroes found
themselves able to do so, they occasionally purchased Negroes, who might
be their own children or brothers, in order to give them that protection
without which on account of recent manumission they might be required to
leave the colony in which they were born. Thus, whatever the motive, the
tie that bound the free Negro and the slave was a strong one; and in spite of
the fact that Negroes who owned slaves were generally known as hard
masters, as soon as any men of the race began to be really prominent their
best endeavor was devoted to the advancement of their people. It was not

until immediately after the Revolutionary War, however, that leaders of
vision and statesmanship began to be developed.
It was only the materialism of the eighteenth century that accounted for
the amazing development of the system of Negro slavery, and only this that
defeated the benevolence of Oglethorpe's scheme for the founding of
Georgia. As yet there was no united protest—no general movement for
freedom; and as Von Holst said long afterwards, "If the agitation had been
wholly left to the churches, it would have been long before men could have
rightly spoken of 'a slavery question.'" The Puritans, however, were not
wholly unmindful of the evil, and the Quakers were untiring in their
opposition, though it was Roger Williams who in 1637 made the first
protest that appears in the colonies.38 Both John Eliot and Cotton Mather
were somewhat generally concerned about the harsh treatment of the Negro
and the neglect of his spiritual welfare. Somewhat more to the point was
Richard Baxter, the eminent English nonconformist, who was a
contemporary of both of these men. "Remember," said he, in speaking of
Negroes and other slaves, "that they are of as good a kind as you; that is,
they are reasonable creatures as well as you, and born to as much natural
liberty. If their sin have enslaved them to you, yet Nature made them your
equals." On the subject of man-stealing he is even stronger: "To go as
pirates and catch up poor Negroes or people of another land, that never
forfeited life or liberty, and to make them slaves, and sell them, is one of the
worst kinds of thievery in the world." Such statements, however, were not
more than the voice of individual opinion. The principles of the Quakers
carried them far beyond the Puritans, and their history shows what might
have been accomplished if other denominations had been as sincere and as
unselfish as the Society of Friends. The Germantown protest of 1688 has
already been remarked. In 1693 George Keith, in speaking of fugitives,
quoted with telling effect the text, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master
the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee" (Deut. 23.15). In
1696 the Yearly Meeting in Pennsylvania first took definite action in giving
as its advice "that Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any
more Negroes; and that such that have Negroes, be careful of them, bring
them to meetings, have meetings with them in their families, and restrain
them from loose and lewd living as much as in them lies, and from
rambling abroad on First-days or other times."39 As early as 1713 the
Quakers had in mind a scheme for freeing the Negroes and returning them

to Africa, and by 1715 their efforts against importation had seriously
impaired the market for slaves in Philadelphia. Within a century after the
Germantown protest the abolition of slavery among the Quakers was
practically accomplished.
In the very early period there seems to have been little objection to giving
a free Negro not only religious but also secular instruction; indeed he might
be entitled to this, as in Virginia, where in 1691 the church became the
agency through which the laws of Negro apprenticeship were carried out;
thus in 1727 it was ordered that David James, a free Negro boy, be bound to
Mr. James Isdel, who was to "teach him to read the Bible distinctly, also the
trade of a gunsmith" and "carry him to the clerk's office and take indenture
to that purpose."40 In general the English church did a good deal to provide
for the religious instruction of the free Negro; "the reports made in 1724 to
the English bishop by the Virginia parish ministers are evidence that the few
free Negroes in the parishes were permitted to be baptized, and were
received into the church when they had been taught the catechism."41
Among Negroes, moreover, as well as others in the colonies the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was active. As early as 1705,
in Goose Creek Parish in South Carolina, among a population largely
recently imported from Africa, a missionary had among his communicants
twenty blacks who well understood the English tongue.42 The most
effective work of the Society, however, was in New York, where as early as
1704 a school was opened by Elias Neau, a Frenchman who after several
years of imprisonment because of his Protestant faith had come to New
York to try his fortune as a trader. In 1703 he had called the attention of the
Society to the Negroes who were "without God in the world, and of whose
souls there was no manner of care taken," and had suggested the
appointment of a catechist. He himself was prevailed upon to take up the
work and he accordingly resigned his position as an elder in the French
church and conformed to the Church of England. He worked with success
for a number of years, but in 1712 was embarrassed by the charge that his
school fomented the insurrection that was planned in that year. He finally
showed, however, that only one of his students was in any way connected
with the uprising.
From slave advertisements of the eighteenth century43 we may gain many
sidelights not only on the education of Negroes in the colonial era, but on

their environment and suffering as well. One slave "can write a pretty good
hand; plays on the fife extremely well." Another "can both read and write
and is a good fiddler." Still others speak "Dutch and good English," "good
English and High Dutch," or "Swede and English well." Charles Thomas of
Delaware bore the following remarkable characterization: "Very black, has
white teeth ... has had his left leg broke ... speaks both French and English,
and is a very great rogue." One man who came from the West Indies "was
born in Dominica and speaks French, but very little English; he is a very ill-
natured fellow and has been much cut in his back by often whipping." A
Negro named Simon who in 1740 ran away in Pennsylvania "could bleed
and draw teeth pretending to be a great doctor." Worst of all the incidents of
slavery, however, was the lack of regard for home ties, and this situation of
course obtained in the North as well as the South. In the early part of the
eighteenth century marriages in New York were by mutual consent only,
without the blessing of the church, and burial was in a common field
without any Christian office. In Massachusetts in 1710 Rev. Samuel Phillips
drew up a marriage formulary especially designed for slaves and
concluding as follows: "For you must both of you bear in mind that you
remain still, as really and truly as ever, your master's property, and therefore
it will be justly expected, both by God and man, that you behave and
conduct yourselves as obedient and faithful servants."44 In Massachusetts,
however, as in New York, marriage was most often by common consent
simply, without the office of ministers.
As yet there was no racial consciousness, no church, no business
organization, and the chief coöperative effort was in insurrection. Until the
great chain of slavery was thrown off, little independent effort could be put
forth. Even in the state of servitude or slavery, however, the social spirit of
the race yearned to assert itself, and such an event as a funeral was
attractive primarily because of the social features that it developed. As early
as 1693 there is record of the formation of a distinct society by Negroes. In
one of his manuscript diaries, preserved in the library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society,45 Cotton Mather in October of this year wrote as
follows: "Besides the other praying and pious meetings which I have been
continually serving in our neighborhood, a little after this period a company
of poor Negroes, of their own accord, addressed me, for my countenance to
a design which they had, of erecting such a meeting for the welfare of their
miserable nation, that were servants among us. I allowed their design and

went one evening and prayed and preached (on Ps. 68.31) with them; and
gave them the following orders, which I insert duly for the curiosity of the
occasion." The Rules to which Mather here refers are noteworthy as
containing not one suggestion of anti-slavery sentiment, and as portraying
the altogether abject situation of the Negro at the time he wrote;
nevertheless the text used was an inspiring one, and in any case the
document must have historical importance as the earliest thing that has
come down to us in the nature of the constitution or by-laws for a
distinctively Negro organization. It is herewith given entire:

Rules for the Society of Negroes. 1693.
We the Miserable Children of Adam, and of Noah,
thankfully Admiring and Accepting the Free-Grace of GOD,
that Offers to Save us from our Miseries, by the Lord Jesus
Christ, freely Resolve, with His Help, to become the
Servants of that Glorious LORD.
And that we may be Assisted in the Service of our
Heavenly Master, we now join together in a SOCIETY,
wherein the following RULES are to be observed.
I. It shall be our Endeavor, to Meet in the Evening after
the Sabbath; and Pray together by Turns, one to Begin, and
another to Conclude the Meeting; And between the two
Prayers, a Psalm shall be sung, and a Sermon Repeated.
II. Our coming to the Meeting, shall never be without the
Leave of such as have Power over us: And we will be
Careful, that our Meeting may Begin and Conclude between
the Hours of Seven and Nine; and that we may not be
unseasonably Absent from the Families whereto we pertain.
III. As we will, with the help of God, at all Times avoid
all Wicked Company, so we will Receive none into our
Meeting, but such as have sensibly Reformed their lives
from all manner of Wickedness. And, therefore, None shall
be Admitted, without the Knowledge and Consent of the
Minister of God in this place; unto whom we will also carry
every Person, that seeks for Admission among us; to be by
Him Examined, Instructed and Exhorted.
IV. We will, as often as may be, Obtain some Wise and

Good Man, of the English in the Neighborhood, and
especially the Officers of the Church, to look in upon us, and
by their Presence and Counsel, do what they think fitting for
us.
V. If any of our Number fall into the Sin of Drunkenness,
or Swearing, or Cursing, or Lying, or Stealing, or notorious
Disobedience or Unfaithfulness unto their Masters, we will
Admonish him of his Miscarriage, and Forbid his coming to
the Meeting, for at least one Fortnight; And except he then
come with great Signs and Hopes of his Repentance, we will
utterly Exclude him, with Blotting his Name out of our list.
VI. If any of our Society Defile himself with Fornication,
we will give him our Admonition; and so, debar him from
the Meeting, at least half a Year: Nor shall he Return to it,
ever any more, without Exemplary Testimonies of his
becoming a New Creature.
VII. We will, as we have Opportunity, set ourselves to do
all the Good we can, to the other Negro-Servants in the
Town; And if any of them should, at unfit Hours, be Abroad,
much more, if any of them should Run away from their
Masters, we will afford them no Shelter: But we will do
what in us lies, that they may be discovered, and punished.
And if any of us are found Faulty in this matter, they shall be
no longer of us.
VIII. None of our Society shall be Absent from our
Meeting, without giving a Reason of the Absence; and if it
be found, that any have pretended unto their Owners, that
they came unto the Meeting, when they were otherwise and
elsewhere Employed, we will faithfully Inform their
Owners, and also do what we can to Reclaim such Person
from all such Evil Courses for the Future:
IX. It shall be expected from every one in the Society, that
he learn the Catechism; And therefore, it shall be one of our
usual Exercises, for one of us, to ask the Questions, and for
all the rest in their Order, to say the Answers in the
Catechism; Either, The New English Catechism, or the

Assemblies Catechism, or the Catechism in the Negro
Christianised.

4. Early Insurrections

The Negroes who came to America directly from Africa in the eighteenth
century were strikingly different from those whom generations of servitude
later made comparatively docile. They were wild and turbulent in
disposition and were likely at any moment to take revenge for the great
wrong that had been inflicted upon them. The planters in the South knew
this and lived in constant fear of uprisings. When the situation became too
threatening, they placed prohibitive duties on importations, and they also
sought to keep their slaves in subjection by barbarous and cruel modes of
punishment, both crucifixion and burning being legalized in some early
codes. On sea as well as on land Negroes frequently rose upon those who
held them in bondage, and sometimes they actually won their freedom.
More and more, however, in any study of Negro insurrections it becomes
difficult to distinguish between a clearly organized revolt and what might
be regarded as simply a personal crime, so that those uprisings considered
in the following discussion can only be construed as the more representative
of the many attempts for freedom made by Negro slaves in the colonial era.
In 1687 there was in Virginia a conspiracy among the Negroes in the
Northern Neck that was detected just in time to prevent slaughter, and in
Surry County in 1710 there was a similar plot, betrayed by one of the
conspirators. In 1711, in South Carolina, several Negroes ran away from
their masters and "kept out, armed, robbing and plundering houses and
plantations, and putting the inhabitants of the province in great fear and
terror";46 and Governor Gibbes more than once wrote to the legislature
about amending the Negro Act, as the one already in force did "not reach up
to some of the crimes" that were daily being committed. For one Sebastian,
"a Spanish Negro," alive or dead, a reward of £50 was offered, and he was
at length brought in by the Indians and taken in triumph to Charleston. In
1712 in New York occurred an outbreak that occasioned greater excitement
than any uprising that had preceded it in the colonies. Early in the morning
of April 7 some slaves of the Carmantee and Pappa tribes who had suffered
ill-usage, set on fire the house of Peter van Tilburgh, and, armed with guns

and knives, killed and wounded several persons who came to extinguish the
flames. They fled, however, when the Governor ordered the cannon to be
fired to alarm the town, and they got away to the woods as well as they
could, but not before they had killed several more of the citizens. Some shot
themselves in the woods and others were captured. Altogether eight or ten
white persons were killed, and, aside from those Negroes who had
committed suicide, eighteen or more were executed, several others being
transported. Of those executed one was hanged alive in chains, some were
burned at the stake, and one was left to die a lingering death before the gaze
of the town.
In May, 1720, some Negroes in South Carolina were fairly well
organized and killed a man named Benjamin Cattle, one white woman, and
a little Negro boy. They were pursued and twenty-three taken and six
convicted. Three of the latter were executed, the other three escaping. In
October, 1722, the Negroes near the mouth of the Rappahannock in Virginia
undertook to kill the white people while the latter were assembled in
church, but were discovered and put to flight. On this occasion, as on most
others, Sunday was the day chosen for the outbreak, the Negroes then being
best able to get together. In April, 1723, it was thought that some fires in
Boston had been started by Negroes, and the selectmen recommended that
if more than two Negroes were found "lurking together" on the streets they
should be put in the house of correction. In 1728 there was a well organized
attempt in Savannah, then a place of three thousand white people and two
thousand seven hundred Negroes. The plan to kill all the white people failed
because of disagreement as to the exact method; but the body of Negroes
had to be, fired on more than once before it dispersed. In 1730 there was in
Williamsburg, Va., an insurrection that grew out of a report that Colonel
Spotswood had orders from the king to free all baptized persons on his
arrival; men from all the surrounding counties had to be called in before it
could be put down.
The first open rebellion in South Carolina in which Negroes were
"actually armed and embodied"47 took place in 1730. The plan was for each
Negro to kill his master in the dead of night, then for all to assemble
supposedly for a dancing-bout, rush upon the heart of the city, take
possession of the arms, and kill any white man they saw. The plot was
discovered and the leaders executed. In this same colony three formidable
insurrections broke out within the one year 1739—one in St. Paul's Parish,

one in St. John's, and one in Charleston. To some extent these seem to have
been fomented by the Spaniards in the South, and in one of them six houses
were burned and as many as twenty-five white people killed. The Negroes
were pursued and fourteen killed. Within two days "twenty more were
killed, and forty were taken, some of whom were shot, some hanged, and
some gibbeted alive."48 This "examplary punishment," as Governor Gibbes
called it, was by no means effective, for in the very next year, 1740, there
broke out what might be considered the most formidable insurrection in the
South in the whole colonial period. A number of Negroes, having assembled
at Stono, first surprised, and killed two young men in a warehouse, from
which they then took guns and ammunition.49 They then elected as captain
one of their own number named Cato, whom they agreed to follow, and
they marched towards the southwest, with drums beating and colors flying,
like a disciplined company. They entered the home of a man named
Godfrey, and having murdered him and his wife and children, they took all
the arms he had, set fire to the house, and proceeded towards Jonesboro. On
their way they plundered and burned every house to which they came,
killing every white person they found and compelling the Negroes to join
them. Governor Bull, who happened to be returning to Charleston from the
southward, met them, and observing them armed, spread the alarm, which
soon reached the Presbyterian Church at Wilton, where a number of
planters was assembled. The women were left in the church trembling with
fear, while the militia formed and marched in quest of the Negroes, who by
this time had become formidable from the number that had joined them.
They had marched twelve miles and spread desolation through all the
plantations on their way. They had then halted in an open field and too soon
had begun to sing and drink and dance by way of triumph. During these
rejoicings the militia discovered them and stationed themselves in different
places around them to prevent their escape. One party then advanced into
the open field and attacked the Negroes. Some were killed and the others
were forced to the woods. Many ran back to the plantations, hoping thus to
avoid suspicion, but most of them were taken and tried. Such as had been
forced to join the uprising against their will were pardoned, but all of the
chosen leaders and the first insurgents were put to death. All Carolina, we
are told, was struck with terror and consternation by this insurrection, in
which more than twenty white persons were killed. It was followed
immediately by the famous and severe Negro Act of 1740, which among

other provisions imposed a duty of £100 on Africans and £150 on colonial
Negroes. This remained technically in force until 1822, and yet as soon as
security and confidence were restored, there was a relaxation in the
execution of the provisions of the act and the Negroes little by little
regained confidence in themselves and again began to plan and act in
concert.
About the time of Cato's insurrection there were also several uprisings at
sea. In 1731, on a ship returning to Rhode Island from Guinea with a cargo
of slaves, the Negroes rose and killed three of the crew, all the members of
which died soon afterwards with the exception of the captain and his boy.
The next year Captain John Major of Portsmouth, N.H., was murdered with
all his crew, his schooner and cargo being seized by the slaves. In 1735 the
captives on the Dolphin of London, while still on the coast of Africa,
overpowered the crew, broke into the powder room, and finally in the
course of their effort for freedom blew up both themselves and the crew.
A most remarkable design—as an insurrection perhaps not as formidable
as that of Cato, but in some ways the most important single event in the
history of the Negro in the colonial period—was the plot in the city of New
York in 1741. New York was at the time a thriving town of twelve thousand
inhabitants, and the calamity that now befell it was unfortunate in every
way. It was not only a Negro insurrection, though the Negro finally suffered
most bitterly. It was also a strange compound of the effects of whiskey and
gambling, of the designs of abandoned white people, and of prejudice
against the Catholics.
Prominent in the remarkable drama were John Hughson, a shoemaker
and alehouse keeper; Sarah Hughson, his wife; John Romme, also a
shoemaker and alehouse keeper; Margaret Kerry, alias Salinburgh,
commonly known as Peggy; John Ury, a priest; and a number of Negroes,
chief among whom were Cæsar, Prince, Cuffee, and Quack.50 Prominent
among those who helped to work out the plot were Mary Burton, a white
servant of Hughson's, sixteen years of age; Arthur Price, a young white man
who at the time of the proceedings happened to be in prison on a charge of
stealing; a young seaman named Wilson; and two white women, Mrs. Earle
and Mrs. Hogg, the latter of whom assisted in the store kept by her husband,
Robert Hogg. Hughson's house on the outskirts of the town was a resort for
Negroes, and Hughson himself aided and abetted the Negro men in any

crime that they might commit. Romme was of similar quality. Peggy was a
prostitute, and it was Cæsar who paid for her board with the Hughsons. In
the previous summer she had found lodging with these people, a little later
she had removed to Romme's, and just before Christmas she had come back
to Hughson's, and a few weeks thereafter she became a mother. At both the
public houses the Negroes would engage in drinking and gambling; and
importance also attaches to an organization of theirs known as the Geneva
Society, which had angered some of the white citizens by its imitation of
the rites and forms of freemasonry.
Events really began on the night of Saturday, February 28, 1741, with a
robbery in the house of Hogg, the merchant, from which were taken various
pieces of linen and other goods, several silver coins, chiefly Spanish, and
medals, to the value of about £60. On the day before, in the course of a
simple purchase by Wilson, Mrs. Hogg had revealed to the young seaman
her treasure. He soon spoke of the same to Cæsar, Prince, and Cuffee, with
whom he was acquainted; he gave them the plan of the house, and they in
turn spoke of the matter to Hughson. Wilson, however, when later told of
the robbery by Mrs. Hogg, at once turned suspicion upon the Negroes,
especially Cæsar; and Mary Burton testified that she saw some of the
speckled linen in question in Peggy's room after Cæsar had gone thither.
On Wednesday, March 18, a fire broke out on the roof of His Majesty's
House at Fort George. One week later, on March 25, there was a fire at the
home of Captain Warren in the southwest end of the city, and the
circumstances pointed to incendiary origin. One week later, on April 1,
there was a fire in the storehouse of a man named Van Zant; on the
following Saturday evening there was another fire, and while the people
were returning from this there was still another; and on the next day,
Sunday, there was another alarm, and by this time the whole town had been
worked up to the highest pitch of excitement. As yet there was nothing to
point to any connection between the stealing and the fires. On the day of the
last one, however, Mrs. Earle happened to overhear remarks by three
Negroes that caused suspicion to light upon them; Mary Burton was
insisting that stolen goods had been brought by Prince and Cæsar to the
house of her master; and although a search of the home of Hughson failed
to produce a great deal, arrests were made right and left. The case was
finally taken to the Supreme Court, and because of the white persons

implicated, the summary methods ordinarily used in dealing with Negroes
were waived for the time being.
Peggy at first withstood all questioning, denying any knowledge of the
events that had taken place. One day in prison, however, she remarked to
Arthur Price that she was afraid the Negroes would tell but that she would
not forswear herself unless they brought her into the matter. "How
forswear?" asked Price. "There are fourteen sworn," she said. "What, is it
about Mr. Hogg's goods?" he asked. "No," she replied, "about the fire."
"What, Peggy," asked Price, "were you going to set the town on fire?" "No,"
she replied, "but since I knew of it they made me swear." She also remarked
that she had faith in Prince, Cuff, and Cæsar. All the while she used the
vilest possible language, and at last, thinking suddenly that she had revealed
too much, she turned upon Price and with an oath warned him that he had
better keep his counsel. That afternoon she said further to him that she
could not eat because Mary had brought her into the case.
A little later Peggy, much afraid, voluntarily confessed that early in May
she was at the home of John Romme, where in the course of December the
Negroes had had several meetings; among other things they had conspired
to burn the fort first of all, then the city, then to get all the goods they could
and kill anybody who had money. One evening just about Christmas, she
said, Romme and his wife and ten or eleven Negroes had been together in a
room. Romme had talked about how rich some people were, gradually
working on the feelings of the Negroes and promising them that if they did
not succeed in their designs he would take them to a strange country and set
them free, meanwhile giving them the impression that he bore a charmed
life. A little later, it appeared, Cæsar gave to Hughson £12; Hughson was
then absent for three days, and when he came again he brought with him
seven or eight guns, some pistols, and some swords.
As a result of these and other disclosures it was seen that not only
Hughson and Romme but also Ury, who was not so much a priest as an
adventurer, had instigated the plots of the Negroes; and Quack testified that
Hughson was the first contriver of the plot to burn the houses of the town
and kill the people, though he himself, he confessed, did fire the fort with a
lighted stick. The punishment was terrible. Quack and Cuffee, the first to be
executed, were burned at the stake on May 30. All through the summer the
trials and the executions continued, harassing New York and indeed the

whole country. Altogether twenty white persons were arrested; four—
Hughson, his wife, Peggy, and Ury—were executed, and some of their
acquaintances were forced to leave the province. One hundred and fifty-
four Negroes were arrested. Thirteen were burned, eighteen were hanged,
and seventy-one transported.

It is evident from these events and from the legislation of the era that,
except for the earnest work of such a sect as the Quakers, there was little
genuine effort for the improvement of the social condition of the Negro
people in the colonies. They were not even regarded as potential citizens,
and both in and out of the system of slavery were subjected to the harshest
regulations. Towards amicable relations with the other racial elements that
were coming to build up a new country only the slightest measure of
progress was made. Instead, insurrection after insurrection revealed the
sharpest antagonism, and any outbreak promptly called forth the severest
and frequently the most cruel punishment.
Footnote 22: (return)
New International Encyclopædia, Article "Slavery."

Footnote 23: (return)
Coman: Industrial History, 42.

Footnote 24: (return)
New International Encyclopædia, Article "Slavery."

Footnote 25: (return)
Hening: Statutes, II, 170.

Footnote 26: (return)
Hening: Statutes, I, 146.

Footnote 27: (return)
Ibid., I, 552.

Footnote 28: (return)
Hurd, commenting on an act of 1649 declaring all imported male servants to be
tithables, speaks as follows (230): "Tithables were persons assessed for a poll-
tax, otherwise called the 'county levies.' At first, only free white persons were
tithable. The law of 1645 provided for a tax on property and tithable persons. By
1648 property was released and taxes levied only on the tithables, at a specified
poll-tax. Therefore by classing servants or slaves as tithables, the law attributes

to them legal personality, or a membership in the social state inconsistent with
the condition of a chattel or property."

Footnote 29: (return)
Hening: Statutes, III, 537.

Footnote 30: (return)
Virginia Magazine of History, X, 281.

Footnote 31: (return)
The penalty was so ineffective that in 1705 it was changed simply to
imprisonment for six months "without bail or mainprise."

Footnote 32: (return)
Turner: The Negro in Pennsylvania, 29-30.

Footnote 33: (return)
Russell: The Free Negro in Virginia, 32-33, cites from the court records of
Northampton County, 1651-1654 and 1655-1658, the noteworthy case of a free
negro, Anthony Johnson, who had come to Virginia not later than 1622 and who
by 1650 owned a large tract of land on the Eastern Shore. To him belonged a
Negro, John Casor. After several years of labor Casor demanded his freedom on
the ground that from the first he had been an indentured servant and not a slave.
When the case came up in court, however, not only did Johnson win the verdict
that Casor was his slave, but he also won his suit against Robert Parker, a white
man, who he asserted had illegally detained Casor.

Footnote 34: (return)
Hening: Statutes, IV, 131.

Footnote 35: (return)
Blake: History of Slavery and the Slave-Trade, 378.

Footnote 36: (return)
Ballagh: Slavery in Virginia, 12.

Footnote 37: (return)
Edward Eggleston: "Social Conditions in the Colonies," in Century Magazine,
October, 1884, p. 863.

Footnote 38: (return)
For this and the references immediately following note Locke: Anti-Slavery in
America, 11-45.

Footnote 39: (return)
Brief Statement of the Rise and Progress of the Testimony of the Religious
Society of Friends against Slavery and the Slave-Trade, 8.

Footnote 40: (return)
Russell: The Free Negro in Virginia, 138-9.

Footnote 41: (return)
Ibid., 138.

Footnote 42: (return)
C.E. Pierre, in Journal of Negro History, October, 1916, p. 350.

Footnote 43: (return)
See documents, "Eighteenth Century Slave Advertisements," Journal of Negro
History, April, 1916, 163-216.

Footnote 44: (return)
Quoted from Williams: Centennial Oration, "The American Negro from 1776 to
1876," 10.

Footnote 45: (return)
See Rules for the Society of Negroes, 1693, by Cotton Mather, reprinted, New
York, 1888, by George H. Moore.

Footnote 46: (return)
Holland: A Refutation of Calumnies, 63.

Footnote 47: (return)
Holland: A Refutation of Calumnies, 68.

Footnote 48: (return)
Coffin.

Footnote 49: (return)
The following account follows mainly Holland, quoting Hewitt.

Footnote 50: (return)
The sole authority on the plot is "A Journal of the Proceedings in the Detection
of the Conspiracy formed by Some White People, in Conjunction with Negro
and other Slaves, for Burning the City of New York in America, and Murdering
the Inhabitants (by Judge Daniel Horsemanden). New York, 1744."

CHAPTER III
THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA

1. Sentiment in England and America

The materialism of the eighteenth century, with all of its evils, at length
produced a liberalism of thought that was to shake to their very foundations
old systems of life in both Europe and America. The progress of the cause
of the Negro in this period is to be explained by the general diffusion of
ideas that made for the rights of man everywhere. Cowper wrote his
humanitarian poems; in close association with the romanticism of the day
the missionary movement in religion began to gather force; and the same
impulse which in England began the agitation for a free press and for
parliamentary reform, and which in France accounted for the French
Revolution, in America led to the revolt from Great Britain. No patriot
could come under the influence of any one of these movements without
having his heart and his sense of justice stirred to some degree in behalf of
the slave. At the same time it must be remembered that the contest of the
Americans was primarily for the definite legal rights of Englishmen rather
than for the more abstract rights of mankind which formed the platform of
the French Revolution; hence arose the great inconsistency in the position
of men who were engaged in a stern struggle for liberty at the same time
that they themselves were holding human beings in bondage.
In England the new era was formally signalized by an epoch-making
decision. In November, 1769, Charles Stewart, once a merchant in Norfolk
and later receiver general of the customs of North America, took to England
his Negro slave, James Somerset, who, being sick, was turned adrift by his
master. Later Somerset recovered and Stewart seized him, intending to have
him borne out of the country and sold in Jamaica. Somerset objected to this
and in so doing raised the important legal question, Did a slave by being

brought to England become free? The case received an extraordinary
amount of attention, for everybody realized that the decision would be far-
reaching in its consequences. After it was argued at three different sittings,
Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of England, in 1772 handed down from the
Court of King's Bench the judgment that as soon as ever any slave set his
foot upon the soil of England he became free.
This decision may be taken as fairly representative of the general
advance that the cause of the Negro was making in England at the time.
Early in the century sentiment against the slave-trade had begun to develop,
many pamphlets on the evils of slavery were circulated, and as early as
1776 a motion for the abolition of the trade was made in the House of
Commons. John Wesley preached against the system, Adam Smith showed
its ultimate expensiveness, and Burke declared that the slavery endured by
the Negroes in the English settlements was worse than that ever suffered by
any other people. Foremost in the work of protest were Thomas Clarkson
and William Wilberforce, the one being the leader in investigation and in
the organization of the movement against slavery while the other was the
parliamentary champion of the cause. For years, assisted by such debaters
as Burke, Fox, and the younger Pitt, Wilberforce worked until on March 25,
1807, the bill for the abolition of the slave-trade received the royal assent,
and still later until slavery itself was abolished in the English dominions
(1833).
This high thought in England necessarily found some reflection in
America, where the logic of the position of the patriots frequently forced
them to take up the cause of the slave. As early as 1751 Benjamin Franklin,
in his Observations concerning the Increase of Mankind, pointed out the
evil effects of slavery upon population and the production of wealth; and in
1761 James Otis, in his argument against the Writs of Assistance, spoke so
vigorously of the rights of black men as to leave no doubt as to his own
position. To Patrick Henry slavery was a practice "totally repugnant to the
first impressions of right and wrong," and in 1777 he was interested in a
plan for gradual emancipation received from his friend, Robert Pleasants.
Washington desired nothing more than "to see some plan adopted by which
slavery might be abolished by law"; while Joel Barlow in his Columbiad
gave significant warning to Columbia of the ills that she was heaping up for
herself.

Two of the expressions of sentiment of the day, by reason of their deep
yearning and philosophic calm, somehow stand apart from others. Thomas
Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia wrote: "The whole commerce between
master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the
most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on
the other.... The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and
morals undepraved by such circumstances.... I tremble for my country when
I reflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; that
considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the
wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it
may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no
attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."51 Henry Laurens,
that fine patriot whose business sense was excelled only by his idealism,
was harassed by the problem and wrote to his son, Colonel John Laurens, as
follows: "You know, my dear son, I abhor slavery. I was born in a country
where slavery had been established by British kings and parliaments, as
well as by the laws of that country ages before my existence. I found the
Christian religion and slavery growing under the same authority and
cultivation. I nevertheless disliked it. In former days there was no
combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day I hope is
approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every
man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the
golden rule. Not less than twenty thousand pounds sterling would all my
Negroes produce if sold at public auction to-morrow. I am not the man who
enslaved them; they are indebted to Englishmen for that favor; nevertheless
I am devising means for manumitting many of them, and for cutting off the
entail of slavery. Great powers oppose me—the laws and customs of my
country, my own and the avarice of my countrymen. What will my children
say if I deprive them of so much estate? These are difficulties, but not
insuperable. I will do as much as I can in my time, and leave the rest to a
better hand."52 Stronger than all else, however, were the immortal words of
the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." Within the years to come these words were to be denied and
assailed as perhaps no others in the language; but in spite of all they were to

stand firm and justify the faith of 1776 before Jefferson himself and others
had become submerged in a gilded opportunism.
It is not to be supposed that such sentiments were by any means general;
nevertheless these instances alone show that some men at least in the
colonies were willing to carry their principles to their logical conclusion.
Naturally opinion crystallized in formal resolutions or enactments.
Unfortunately most of these were in one way or another rendered
ineffectual after the war; nevertheless the main impulse that they
represented continued to live. In 1769 Virginia declared that the
discriminatory tax levied on free Negroes and mulattoes since 1668 was
"derogatory to the rights of freeborn subjects" and accordingly should be
repealed. In October, 1774, the First Continental Congress declared in its
Articles of Association that the united colonies would "neither import nor
purchase any slave imported after the first day of December next" and that
they would "wholly discontinue the trade." On April 16, 1776, the Congress
further resolved that "no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen
colonies"; and the first draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a
strong passage censuring the King of England for bringing slaves into the
country and then inciting them to rise against their masters. On April 14,
1775, the first abolition society in the country was organized in
Pennsylvania; in 1778 Virginia once more passed an act prohibiting the
slave-trade; and the Methodist Conference in Baltimore in 1780 strongly
expressed its disapproval of slavery.

2. The Negro in the War

As in all the greater wars in which the country has engaged, the position
of the Negro was generally improved by the American Revolution. It was
not by reason of any definite plan that this was so, for in general the
disposition of the government was to keep him out of the conflict.
Nevertheless between the hesitating policy of America and the overtures of
England the Negro made considerable advance.
The American cause in truth presented a strange and embarrassing
dilemma, as we have remarked. In the war itself, moreover, began the stern
cleavage between the North and the South. At the moment the rift was not
clearly discerned, but afterwards it was to widen into a chasm.

Massachusetts bore more than her share of the struggle, and in the South the
combination of Tory sentiment and the aristocratic social system made
enlistment especially difficult. In this latter section, moreover, there was
always the lurking fear of an uprising of the slaves, and before the end of
the war came South Carolina and Georgia were very nearly demoralized. In
the course of the conflict South Carolina lost not less than 25,000 slaves,53
about one-fifth of all she had. Georgia did not lose so many, but
proportionally suffered even more. Some of the Negroes went into the
British army, some went away with the loyalists, and some took advantage
of the confusion and escaped to the Indians. In Virginia, until they were
stopped at least, some slaves entered the Continental Army as free Negroes.
Three or four facts are outstanding. The formal policy of Congress and of
Washington and his officers was against the enlistment of Negroes and
especially of slaves; nevertheless, while things were still uncertain, some
Negroes entered the regular units. The inducements offered by the English,
moreover, forced a modification of the American policy in actual operation;
and before the war was over the colonists were so hard pressed that in more
ways than one they were willing to receive the assistance of Negroes.
Throughout the North Negroes served in the regular units; but while in the
South especially there was much thought given to the training of slaves, in
only one of all the colonies was there a distinctively Negro military
organization, and that one was Rhode Island. In general it was understood
that if a slave served in the war he was to be given his freedom, and it is
worthy of note that many slaves served in the field instead of their masters.
In Massachusetts on May 29, 1775, the Committee of Safety passed an
act against the enlistment of slaves as "inconsistent with the principles that
are to be supported." Another resolution of June 6 dealing with the same
matter was laid on the table. Washington took command of the forces in and
about Boston July 3, 1775, and on July 10 issued instructions to the
recruiting officers in Massachusetts against the enlisting of Negroes.
Toward the end of September there was a spirited debate in Congress over a
letter to go to Washington, the Southern delegates, led by Rutledge of South
Carolina, endeavoring to force instructions to the commander-in-chief to
discharge all slaves and free Negroes in the army. A motion to this effect
failed to win a majority; nevertheless, a council of Washington and his
generals on October 8 "agreed unanimously to reject all slaves, and, by a
great majority, to reject Negroes altogether," and in his general orders of

November 12 Washington acted on this understanding. Meanwhile,
however, Lord Dunmore issued his proclamation declaring free those
indentured servants and Negroes who would join the English army, and in
great numbers the slaves in Virginia flocked to the British standard. Then on
December 14—somewhat to the amusement of both the Negroes and the
English—the Virginia Convention issued a proclamation offering pardon to
those slaves who returned to their duty within ten days. On December 30
Washington gave instructions for the enlistment of free Negroes, promising
later to lay the matter before Congress; and a congressional committee on
January 16, 1776, reported that those free Negroes who had already served
faithfully in the army at Cambridge might reënlist but no others, the debate
in this connection having drawn very sharply the line between the North
and the South. Henceforth for all practical purposes the matter was left in
the hands of the individual colonies. Massachusetts on January 6, 1777,
passed a resolution drafting every seventh man to complete her quota
"without any exception, save the people called Quakers," and this was as
near as she came at any time in the war to the formal recognition of the
Negro. The Rhode Island Assembly in 1778 resolved to raise a regiment of
slaves, who were to be freed at enlistment, their owners in no case being
paid more than £120. In the Battle of Rhode Island August 29, 1778, the
Negro regiment under Colonel Greene distinguished itself by deeds of
desperate valor, repelling three times the assaults of an overwhelming force
of Hessian troops. A little later, when Greene was about to be murdered,
some of these same soldiers had to be cut to pieces before he could be
secured. Maryland employed Negroes as soldiers and sent them into
regiments along with white men, and it is to be remembered that at the time
the Negro population of Maryland was exceeded only by that of Virginia
and South Carolina. For the far South there was the famous Laurens plan
for the raising of Negro regiments.
In a letter to Washington of March 16, 1779, Henry Laurens suggested
the raising and training of three thousand Negroes in South Carolina.
Washington was rather conservative about the plan, having in mind the
ever-present fear of the arming of Negroes and wondering about the effect
on those slaves who were not given a chance for freedom. On June 30,
1779, however, Sir Henry Clinton issued a proclamation only less far-
reaching than Dunmore's, threatening Negroes if they joined the "rebel"
army and offering them security if they came within the British lines. This

was effective; assistance of any kind that the Continental Army could now
get was acceptable; and the plan for the raising of several battalions of
Negroes in the South was entrusted to Colonel John Laurens, a member of
Washington's staff. In his own way Colonel Laurens was a man of parts
quite as well as his father; he was thoroughly devoted to the American
cause and Washington said of him that his only fault was a courage that
bordered on rashness. He eagerly pursued his favorite project; able-bodied
slaves were to be paid for by Congress at the rate of $1,000 each, and one
who served to the end of the war was to receive his freedom and $50 in
addition. In South Carolina, however, Laurens received little
encouragement, and in 1780 he was called upon to go to France on a
patriotic mission. He had not forgotten the matter when he returned in 1782;
but by that time Cornwallis had surrendered and the country had entered
upon the critical period of adjustment to the new conditions. Washington
now wrote to Laurens: "I must confess that I am not at all astonished at the
failure of your plan. That spirit of freedom which, at the commencement of
this contest, would have gladly sacrificed everything to the attainment of its
object, has long since subsided, and every selfish passion has taken its
place. It is not the public but private interest which influences the generality
of mankind; nor can the Americans any longer boast an exception. Under
these circumstances, it would rather have been surprising if you had
succeeded; nor will you, I fear, have better success in Georgia."54
From this brief survey we may at least see something of the anomalous
position occupied by the Negro in the American Revolution. Altogether not
less than three thousand, and probably more, members of the race served in
the Continental army. At the close of the conflict New York, Rhode Island,
and Virginia freed their slave soldiers. In general, however, the system of
slavery was not affected, and the English were bound by the treaty of peace
not to carry away any Negroes. As late as 1786, it is nevertheless interesting
to note, a band of Negroes calling themselves "The King of England's
soldiers" harassed and alarmed the people on both sides of the Savannah
River.
Slavery remained; but people could not forget the valor of the Negro
regiment in Rhode Island, or the courage of individual soldiers. They could
not forget that it was a Negro, Crispus Attucks, who had been the patriot
leader in the Boston Massacre, or the scene when he and one of his
companions, Jonas Caldwell, lay in Faneuil Hall. Those who were at

Bunker Hill could not fail to remember Peter Salem, who, when Major
Pitcairn of the British army was exulting in his expected triumph, rushed
forward, shot him in the breast, and killed him; or Samuel Poor, whose
officers testified that he performed so many brave deeds that "to set forth
particulars of his conduct would be tedious." These and many more, some
with very humble names, in a dark day worked for a better country. They
died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar
off.

3. The Northwest Territory and the Constitution

The materialism and selfishness which rose in the course of the war to
oppose the liberal tendencies of the period, and which Washington felt did
so much to embarrass the government, became pronounced in the debates
on the Northwest Territory and the Constitution. At the outbreak of the
Revolutionary War the region west of Pennsylvania, east of the Mississippi
River, north of the Ohio River, and south of Canada, was claimed by
Virginia, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. This territory afforded
to these states a source of revenue not possessed by the others for the
payment of debts incurred in the war, and Maryland and other seaboard
states insisted that in order to equalize matters these claimants should cede
their rights to the general government. The formal cessions were made and
accepted in the years 1782-6. In April, 1784, after Virginia had made her
cession, the most important, Congress adopted a temporary form of
government drawn up by Thomas Jefferson for the territory south as well as
north of the Ohio River. Jefferson's most significant provision, however,
was rejected. This declared that "after the year 1800 there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states other than in the
punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to
have been personally guilty." This early ordinance, although it did not go
into effect, is interesting as an attempt to exclude slavery from the great
West that was beginning to be opened up. On March 3, 1786, moreover, the
Ohio Company was formed in Boston by a group of New England business
men for the purpose of purchasing land in the West and promoting
settlement; and early in June, 1787, Dr. Manasseh Cutler, one of the chief
promoters of the company, appeared in New York, where the last
Continental Congress was sitting, for the concrete purpose of buying land.

He doubtless did much to hasten action by Congress, and on July 13 was
passed "An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United
States, Northwest of the Ohio," the Southern states not having ceded the
area south of the river. It was declared that "There shall be neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment
of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted." To this was added
the stipulation (soon afterwards embodied in the Federal Constitution) for
the return of any person escaping into the territory from whom labor or
service was "lawfully claimed in any one of the original states." In this
shape the ordinance was adopted, even South Carolina and Georgia
concurring; and thus was paved the way for the first fugitive slave law.
Slavery, already looming up as a dominating issue, was the cause of two
of the three great compromises that entered into the making of the
Constitution of the United States (the third, which was the first made, being
the concession to the smaller states of equal representation in the Senate).
These were the first but not the last of the compromises that were to mark
the history of the subject; and, as some clear-headed men of the time
perceived, it would have been better and cheaper to settle the question at
once on the high plane of right rather than to leave it indefinitely to the
future. South Carolina, however, with able representation, largely controlled
the thought of the convention, and she and Georgia made the most extreme
demands, threatening not to accept the Constitution if there was not
compliance with them. An important question was that of representation,
the Southern states advocating representation according to numbers, slave
and free, while the Northern states were in favor of the representation of
free persons only. Williamson of North Carolina advocated the counting of
three-fifths of the slaves, but this motion was at first defeated, and there was
little real progress until Gouverneur Morris suggested that representation be
according to the principle of wealth. Mason of Virginia pointed out practical
difficulties which caused the resolution to be made to apply to direct
taxation only, and in this form it began to be generally acceptable. By this
time, however, the deeper feelings of the delegates on the subject of slavery
had been stirred, and they began to speak plainly. Davie of North Carolina
declared that his state would never enter the Union on any terms that did
not provide for counting at least three-fifths of the slaves and that "if the
Eastern states meant to exclude them altogether the business was at an end."
It was finally agreed to reckon three-fifths of the slaves in estimating taxes

and to make taxation the basis of representation. The whole discussion was
renewed, however, in connection with the question of importation. There
were more threats from the far South, and some of the men from New
England, prompted by commercial interest, even if they did not favor the
sentiments expressed, were at least disposed to give them passive
acquiescence. From Maryland and Virginia, however, came earnest protest.
Luther Martin declared unqualifiedly that to have a clause in the
Constitution permitting the importation of slaves was inconsistent with the
principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character,
and George Mason could foresee only a future in which a just Providence
would punish such a national sin as slavery by national calamities. Such
utterances were not to dominate the convention, however; it was a day of
expediency, not of morality. A bargain was made between the commercial
interests of the North and the slave-holding interests of the South, the
granting to Congress of unrestricted power to enact navigation laws being
conceded in exchange for twenty years' continuance of the slave-trade. The
main agreements on the subject of slavery were thus finally expressed in the
Constitution: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the several states which may be included within this Union, according to
their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of
years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons"
(Art. I, Sec. 2); "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the
states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not
exceeding ten dollars on each person" (Art. I, Sec. 9); "No person held to
service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due" (Art. IV, Sec. 2). With such
provisions, though without the use of the question-begging word slaves, the
institution of human bondage received formal recognition in the organic law
of the new republic of the United States.
"Just what is the light in which we are to regard the slaves?" wondered
James Wilson in the course of the debate. "Are they admitted as citizens?"
he asked; "then why are they not admitted on an equality with white
citizens? Are they admitted as property? then why is not other property

admitted into the computation?" Such questions and others to which they
gave rise were to trouble more heads than his in the course of the coming
years, and all because a great nation did not have the courage to do the right
thing at the right time.

4. Early Steps toward Abolition

In spite, however, of the power crystallized in the Constitution, the moral
movement that had set in against slavery still held its ground, and it was
destined never wholly to languish until slavery ceased altogether to exist in
the United States. Throughout the century the Quakers continued their good
work; in the generation before the war John Woolman of New Jersey
traveled in the Southern colonies preaching that "the practice of continuing
slavery is not right"; and Anthony Benezet opened in Philadelphia a school
for Negroes which he himself taught without remuneration, and otherwise
influenced Pennsylvania to begin the work of emancipation. In general the
Quakers conducted their campaign along the lines on which they were most
likely to succeed, attacking the slave-trade first of all but more and more
making an appeal to the central government; and the first Abolition Society,
organized in Pennsylvania in 1775 and consisting mainly of Quakers, had
for its original object merely the relief of free Negroes unlawfully held in
bondage.55 The organization was forced to suspend its work in the course of
the war, but in 1784 it renewed its meetings, and men of other
denominations than the Quakers now joined in greater numbers. In 1787 the
society was formally reorganized as "The Pennsylvania Society for
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, the Relief of Free Negroes unlawfully
held in Bondage, and for Improving the Condition of the African Race."
Benjamin Franklin was elected president and there was adopted a
constitution which was more and more to serve as a model for similar
societies in the neighboring states.
Four years later, by 1791, there were in the country as many as twelve
abolition societies, and these represented all the states from Massachusetts
to Virginia, with the exception of New Jersey, where a society was formed
the following year. That of New York, formed in 1785 with John Jay as
president, took the name of the Manumission Society, limiting its aims at
first to promoting manumission and protecting those Negroes who had

already been set free. All of the societies had very clear ideas as to their
mission. The prevalence of kidnaping made them emphasize "the relief of
free Negroes unlawfully held in bondage," and in general each one in
addition to its executive committee had committees for inspection, advice,
and protection; for the guardianship of children; for the superintending of
education, and for employment. While the societies were originally formed
to attend to local matters, their efforts naturally extended in course of time
to national affairs, and on December 8, 1791, nine of them prepared
petitions to Congress for the limitation of the slave-trade. These petitions
were referred to a special committee and nothing more was heard of them at
the time. After two years accordingly the organizations decided that a more
vigorous plan of action was necessary, and on January 1, 1794, delegates
from nine societies organized in Philadelphia the American Convention of
Abolition Societies. The object of the Convention was twofold, "to increase
the zeal and efficiency of the individual societies by its advice and
encouragement ... and to take upon itself the chief responsibility in regard to
national affairs." It prepared an address to the country and presented to
Congress a memorial against the fitting out of vessels in the United States
to engage in the slave-trade, and it had the satisfaction of seeing Congress
in the same year pass a bill to this effect.
Some of the organizations were very active and one as far South as that
in Maryland was at first very powerful. Always were they interested in suits
in courts of law. In 1797 the New York Society reported 90 complaints, 36
persons freed, 21 cases still in suit, and 19 under consideration. The
Pennsylvania Society reported simply that it had been instrumental in the
liberation of "many hundreds" of persons. The different branches, however,
did not rest with mere liberation; they endeavored generally to improve the
condition of the Negroes in their respective communities, each one being
expected to report to the Convention on the number of freedmen in its state
and on their property, employment, and conduct. From time to time also the
Convention prepared addresses to these people, and something of the spirit
of its work and also of the social condition of the Negro at the time may be
seen from the following address of 1796:

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 among yourselves.
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; these contain,
amongst 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, and 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 distresses 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 effects of heat
or cold; nor can they, in any degree, 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 moral
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, Endeavor 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, that 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.
Theodore Foster, President. Philadelphia, January 6th,
1796. Thomas P. Cope, Secretary.

The general impulse for liberty which prompted the Revolution and the
early Abolition societies naturally found some reflection in formal
legislation. The declarations of the central government under the
Confederation were not very effective, and for more definite enactments we
have to turn to the individual states. The honor of being the first actually to
prohibit and abolish slavery really belongs to Vermont, whose constitution,
adopted in 1777, even before she had come into the Union, declared very
positively against the system. In 1782 the old Virginia statute forbidding
emancipation except for meritorious services was repealed. The repeal was
in force ten years, and in this time manumissions were numerous. Maryland
soon afterwards passed acts similar to those in Virginia prohibiting the
further introduction of slaves and removing restraints on emancipation, and
New York and New Jersey also prohibited the further introduction of slaves
from Africa or from other states. In 1780, in spite of considerable
opposition because of the course of the war, the Pennsylvania Assembly
passed an act forbidding the further introduction of slaves and giving
freedom to all persons thereafter born in the state. Similar provisions were
enacted in Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784. Meanwhile
Massachusetts was much agitated, and beginning in 1766 there were before
the courts several cases in which Negroes sued for their freedom.56 Their
general argument was that the royal charter declared that all persons
residing in the province were to be as free as the king's subjects in Great
Britain, that by Magna Carta no subject could be deprived of liberty except
by the judgment of his peers, and that any laws that may have been passed
in the province to mitigate or regulate the evil of slavery did not authorize
it. Sometimes the decisions were favorable, but at the beginning of the
Revolution Massachusetts still recognized the system by the decision that
no slave could be enlisted in the army. In 1777, however, some slaves
brought from Jamaica were ordered to be set at liberty, and it was finally

decided in 1783 that the declaration in the Massachusetts Bill of Rights to
the effect that "all men are born free and equal" prohibited slavery. In this
same year New Hampshire incorporated in her constitution a prohibitive
article. By the time the convention for the framing of the Constitution of the
United States met in Philadelphia in 1787, two of the original thirteen states
(Massachusetts and New Hampshire) had positively prohibited slavery, and
in three others (Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) gradual
abolition was in progress.
The next decade was largely one of the settlement of new territory, and
by its close the pendulum seemed to have swung decidedly backward. In
1799, however, after much effort and debating, New York at last declared
for gradual abolition, and New Jersey did likewise in 1804. In general,
gradual emancipation was the result of the work of people who were
humane but also conservative and who questioned the wisdom of thrusting
upon the social organism a large number of Negroes suddenly emancipated.
Sometimes, however, a gradual emancipation act was later followed by one
for immediate manumission, as in New York in 1817. At first those who
favored gradual emancipation were numerous in the South as well as in the
North, but in general after Gabriel's insurrection in 1800, though some
individuals were still outstanding, the South was quiescent. The character of
the acts that were really put in force can hardly be better stated than has
already been done by the specialist in the subject.57 We read:

Gradual emancipation is defined as the extinction of slavery
by depriving it of its hereditary quality. In distinction from
the clauses in the constitutions of Vermont, Massachusetts,
and New Hampshire, which directly or indirectly affected
the condition of slavery as already existing, the gradual
emancipation acts left this condition unchanged and affected
only the children born after the passage of the act or after a
fixed date. Most of these acts followed that of Pennsylvania
in providing that the children of a slave mother should
remain with her owner as servants until they reached a
certain age, of from twenty-one to twenty-eight years, as
stated in the various enactments. In Pennsylvania, however,
they were to be regarded as free. In Connecticut, on the
other hand, they were to be "held in servitude" until twenty-

five years of age and after that to be free. The most liberal
policy was that of Rhode Island, where the children were
pronounced free but were to be supported by the town and
educated in reading, writing, and arithmetic, morality and
religion. The latter clauses, however, were repealed the
following year, leaving the children to be supported by the
owner of the mother until twenty-one years of age, and only
if he abandoned his claims to the mother to become a charge
to the town. In New York and New Jersey they were to
remain as servants until a certain age, but were regarded as
free, and liberal opportunities were given the master for the
abandonment of his claims, the children in such cases to be
supported at the common charge.... The manumission and
emancipation acts were naturally followed, as in the case of
the constitutional provision in Vermont, by the attempts of
some of the slave-owners to dispose of their property outside
the State. Amendments to the laws were found necessary,
and the Abolition Societies found plenty of occasion for
their exertions in protecting free blacks from seizure and
illegal sale and in looking after the execution and
amendment of the laws. The process of gradual
emancipation was also unsatisfactory on account of the
length of time it would require, and in Pennsylvania and
Connecticut attempts were made to obtain acts for
immediate emancipation.

5. Beginning of Racial Consciousness

Of supreme importance in this momentous period, more important
perhaps in its ultimate effect than even the work of the Abolition Societies,
was what the Negro was doing for himself. In the era of the Revolution
began that racial consciousness on which almost all later effort for social
betterment has been based.
By 1700 the only coöperative effort on the part of the Negro was such as
that in the isolated society to which Cotton Mather gave rules, or in a
spasmodic insurrection, or a rather crude development of native African
worship. As yet there was no genuine basis of racial self-respect. In one

way or another, however, in the eighteenth century the idea of association
developed, and especially in Boston about the time of the Revolution
Negroes began definitely to work together; thus they assisted individuals in
test cases in the courts, and when James Swan in his Dissuasion from the
Slave Trade made such a statement as that "no country can be called free
where there is one slave," it was "at the earnest desire of the Negroes in
Boston" that the revised edition of the pamphlet was published.
From the very beginning the Christian Church was the race's foremost
form of social organization. It was but natural that the first distinctively
Negro churches should belong to the democratic Baptist denomination.
There has been much discussion as to which was the very first Negro
Baptist church, and good claims have been put forth by the Harrison Street
Baptist Church of Petersburg, Va., and for a church in Williamsburg, Va.,
organization in each case going back to 1776. A student of the subject,
however, has shown that there was a Negro Baptist church at Silver Bluff,
"on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River, in Aiken County, just
twelve miles from Augusta, Ga.," founded not earlier than 1773, not later
than 1775.58 In any case special interest attaches to the First Bryan Baptist
Church, of Savannah, founded in January, 1788. The origin of this body
goes back to George Liele, a Negro born in Virginia, who might justly lay
claim to being America's first foreign missionary. Converted by a Georgia
Baptist minister, he was licensed as a probationer and was known to preach
soon afterwards at a white quarterly meeting.59 In 1783 he preached in the
vicinity of Savannah, and one of those who came to hear him was Andrew
Bryan, a slave of Jonathan Bryan. Liele then went to Jamaica and in 1784
began to preach in Kingston, where with four brethren from America he
formed a church. At first he was subjected to persecution; nevertheless by
1791 he had baptized over four hundred persons. Eight or nine months after
he left for Jamaica, Andrew Bryan began to preach, and at first he was
permitted to use a building at Yamacraw, in the suburbs of Savannah. Of
this, however, he was in course of time dispossessed, the place being a
rendezvous for those Negroes who had been taken away from their homes
by the British. Many of these men were taken before the magistrates from
time to time, and some were whipped and others imprisoned. Bryan
himself, having incurred the ire of the authorities, was twice imprisoned and
once publicly whipped, being so cut that he "bled abundantly"; but he told
his persecutors that he "would freely suffer death for the cause of Jesus

Christ," and after a while he was permitted to go on with his work. For
some time he used a barn, being assisted by his brother Sampson; then for
£50 he purchased his freedom, and afterwards he began to use for worship a
house that Sampson had been permitted to erect. By 1791 his church had
two hundred members, but over a hundred more had been received as
converted members though they had not won their masters' permission to be
baptized. An interesting sidelight on these people is furnished by the
statement that probably fifty of them could read though only three could
write. Years afterwards, in 1832, when the church had grown to great
numbers, a large part of the congregation left the Bryan Church and formed
what is now the First African Baptist Church of Savannah. Both
congregations, however, remembered their early leader as one "clear in the
grand doctrines of the Gospel, truly pious, and the instrument of doing more
good among the poor slaves than all the learned doctors in America."
While Bryan was working in Savannah, in Richmond, Va., rose Lott
Cary, a man of massive and erect frame and of great personality. Born a
slave in 1780, Cary worked for a number of years in a tobacco factory,
leading a wicked life. Converted in 1807, he made rapid advance in
education and he was licensed as a Baptist preacher. He purchased his own
freedom and that of his children (his first wife having died), organized a
missionary society, and then in 1821 himself went as a missionary to the
new colony of Liberia, in whose interest he worked heroically until his
death in 1828.
More clearly defined than the origin of Negro Baptist churches are the
beginnings of African Methodism. Almost from the time of its introduction
in the country Methodism made converts among the Negroes and in 1786
there were nearly two thousand Negroes in the regular churches of the
denomination, which, like the Baptist denomination, it must be
remembered, was before the Revolution largely overshadowed in official
circles by the Protestant Episcopal Church. The general embarrassment of
the Episcopal Church in America in connection with the war, and the
departure of many loyalist ministers, gave opportunity to other
denominations as well as to certain bodies of Negroes. The white members
of St. George's Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, however,
determined to set apart its Negro membership and to segregate it in the
gallery. Then in 1787 came a day when the Negroes, choosing not to be
insulted, and led by Richard Allen and Absalom Jones, left the edifice, and

with these two men as overseers on April 17 organized the Free African
Society. This was intended to be "without regard to religious tenets," the
members being banded together "to support one another in sickness and for
the benefit of their widows and fatherless children." The society was in the
strictest sense fraternal, there being only eight charter members: Absalom
Jones, Richard Allen, Samuel Boston, Joseph Johnson, Cato Freeman,
Cæsar Cranchell, James Potter, and William White. By 1790 the society had
on deposit in the Bank of North America £42 9s. id., and that it generally
stood for racial enterprise may be seen from the fact that in 1788 an
organization in Newport known as the Negro Union, in which Paul Cuffe
was prominent, wrote proposing a general exodus of the Negroes to Africa.
Nothing came of the suggestion at the time, but at least it shows that
representative Negroes of the day were beginning to think together about
matters of general policy.
In course of time the Free African Society of Philadelphia resolved into
an "African Church," and this became affiliated with the Protestant
Episcopal Church, whose bishop had exercised an interest in it. Out of this
organization developed St. Thomas's Episcopal Church, organized in 1791
and formally opened for service July 17, 1794. Allen was at first selected
for ordination, but he decided to remain a Methodist and Jones was chosen
in his stead and thus became the first Negro rector in the United States.
Meanwhile, however, in 1791, Allen himself had purchased a lot at the
corner of Sixth and Lombard Streets; he at once set about arranging for the
building that became Bethel Church; and in 1794 he formally sold the lot to
the church and the new house of worship was dedicated by Bishop Asbury
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. With this general body Allen and his
people for a number of years remained affiliated, but difficulties arose and
separate churches having come into being in other places, a convention of
Negro Methodists was at length called to meet in Philadelphia April 9,
1816. To this came sixteen delegates—Richard Allen, Jacob Tapsico,
Clayton Durham, James Champion, Thomas Webster, of Philadelphia;
Daniel Coker, Richard Williams, Henry Harden, Stephen Hill, Edward
Williamson, Nicholas Gailliard, of Baltimore: Jacob Marsh, Edward
Jackson, William Andrew, of Attleborough, Penn.; Peter Spencer, of
Wilmington, Del., and Peter Cuffe, of Salem, N.J.—and these were the men
who founded the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Coker, of whom we

shall hear more in connection with Liberia, was elected bishop, but resigned
in favor of Allen, who served until his death in 1831.
In 1796 a congregation in New York consisting of James Varick and
others also withdrew from the main body of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and in 1800 dedicated a house of worship. For a number of years it
had the oversight of the older organization, but after preliminary steps in
1820, on June 21, 1821, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church was
formally organized. To the first conference came 19 preachers representing
6 churches and 1,426 members. Varick was elected district chairman, but
soon afterwards was made bishop. The polity of this church from the first
differed somewhat from that of the A.M.E. denomination in that
representation of the laity was a prominent feature and there was no bar to
the ordination of women.
Of denominations other than the Baptist and the Methodist, the most
prominent in the earlier years was the Presbyterian, whose first Negro
ministers were John Gloucester and John Chavis. Gloucester owed his
training to the liberal tendencies that about 1800 were still strong in eastern
Tennessee and Kentucky, and in 1810 took charge of the African
Presbyterian Church which in 1807 had been established in Philadelphia.
He was distinguished by a rich musical voice and the general dignity of his
life, and he himself became the father of four Presbyterian ministers. Chavis
had a very unusual career. After passing "through a regular course of
academic studies" at Washington Academy, now Washington and Lee
University, in 1801 he was commissioned by the General Assembly of the
Presbyterians as a missionary to the Negroes. He worked with increasing
reputation until Nat Turner's insurrection caused the North Carolina
legislature in 1832 to pass an act silencing all Negro preachers. Then in
Wake County and elsewhere he conducted schools for white boys until his
death in 1838. In these early years distinction also attaches to Lemuel
Haynes, a Revolutionary patriot and the first Negro preacher of the
Congregational denomination. In 1785 he became the pastor of a white
congregation in Torrington, Conn., and in 1818 began to serve another in
Manchester, N.H.
After the church the strongest organization among Negroes has
undoubtedly been that of secret societies commonly known as "lodges."
The benefit societies were not necessarily secret and call for separate

consideration. On March 6, 1775, an army lodge attached to one of the
regiments stationed under General Gage in or near Boston initiated Prince
Hall and fourteen other colored men into the mysteries of Freemasonry.60
These fifteen men on March 2, 1784, applied to the Grand Lodge of
England for a warrant. This was issued to "African Lodge, No. 459," with
Prince Hall as master, September 29, 1784. Various delays and
misadventures befell the warrant, however, so that it was not actually
received before April 29, 1787. The lodge was then duly organized May 6.
From this beginning developed the idea of Masonry among the Negroes of
America. As early as 1792 Hall was formally styled Grand Master, and in
1797 he issued a license to thirteen Negroes to "assemble and work" as a
lodge in Philadelphia; and there was also at this time a lodge in Providence.
Thus developed in 1808 the "African Grand Lodge" of Boston, afterwards
known as "Prince Hall Lodge of Massachusetts"; the second Grand Lodge,
called the "First Independent African Grand Lodge of North America in and
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," organized in 1815; and the
"Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania."
Something of the interest of the Masons in their people, and the calm
judgment that characterized their procedure, may be seen from the words of
their leader, Prince Hall.61 Speaking in 1797, and having in mind the
revolution in Hayti and recent indignities inflicted upon the race in Boston,
he said:

When we hear of the bloody wars which are now in the
world, and thousands of our fellowmen slain; fathers and
mothers bewailing the loss of their sons; wives for the loss
of their husbands; towns and cities burnt and destroyed;
what must be the heartfelt sorrow and distress of these poor
and unhappy people! Though we can not help them, the
distance being so great, yet we may sympathize with them in
their troubles, and mingle a tear of sorrow with them, and do
as we are exhorted to—weep with those that weep....
Now, my brethren, as we see and experience that all
things here are frail and changeable and nothing here to be
depended upon: Let us seek those things which are above,
which are sure and steadfast, and unchangeable, and at the
same time let us pray to Almighty God, while we remain in

the tabernacle, that he would give us the grace and patience
and strength to bear up under all our troubles, which at this
day God knows we have our share. Patience I say, for were
we not possessed of a great measure of it you could not bear
up under the daily insults you meet with in the streets of
Boston; much more on public days of recreation, how are
you shamefully abused, and that at such a degree, that you
may truly be said to carry your lives in your hands; and the
arrows of death are flying about your heads; helpless old
women have their clothes torn off their backs, even to the
exposing of their nakedness; and by whom are these
disgraceful and abusive actions committed? Not by the men
born and bred in Boston, for they are better bred; but by a
mob or horde of shameless, low-lived, envious, spiteful
persons, some of them not long since, servants in
gentlemen's kitchens, scouring knives, tending horses, and
driving chaise. 'Twas said by a gentleman who saw that
filthy behavior in the Common, that in all the places he had
been in he never saw so cruel behavior in all his life, and
that a slave in the West Indies, on Sundays or holidays,
enjoys himself and friends without molestation. Not only
this man, but many in town who have seen their behavior to
you, and that without any provocations twenty or thirty
cowards fall upon one man, have wondered at the patience
of the blacks; 'tis not for want of courage in you, for they
know that they dare not face you man for man, but in a mob,
which we despise, and had rather suffer wrong than do
wrong, to the disturbance of the community and the disgrace
of our reputation; for every good citizen does honor to the
laws of the State where he resides....
My brethren, let us not be cast down under these and
many other abuses we at present labor under: for the darkest
is before the break of day. My brethren, let us remember
what a dark day it was with our African brethren six years
ago, in the French West Indies. Nothing but the snap of the
whip was heard from morning to evening; hanging, breaking
on the wheel, burning, and all manner of tortures inflicted on

those unhappy people, for nothing else but to gratify their
masters' pride, wantonness, and cruelty: but blessed be God,
the scene is changed; they now confess that God hath no
respect of persons, and therefore receive them as their
friends, and treat them as brothers. Thus doth Ethiopia begin
to stretch forth her hand, from a sink of slavery to freedom
and equality.

An African Society was organized in New York in 1808 and chartered in
1810, and out of it grew in course of time three or four other organizations.
Generally close to the social aim of the church and sometimes directly
fathered by the secret societies were the benefit organizations, which even
in the days of slavery existed for aid in sickness or at death; in fact, it was
the hopelessness of the general situation coupled with the yearning for care
when helpless that largely called these societies into being. Their origin has
been explained somewhat as follows:
Although it was unlawful for Negroes to assemble without the presence
of a white man, and so unlawful to allow a congregation of slaves on a
plantation without the consent of the master, these organizations existed and
held these meetings on the "lots" of some of the law-makers themselves.
The general plan seems to have been to select some one who could read and
write and make him the secretary. The meeting-place having been selected,
the members would come by ones and twos, make their payments to the
secretary, and quietly withdraw. The book of the secretary was often kept
covered up on the bed. In many of the societies each member was known by
number and in paying simply announced his number. The president of such
a society was usually a privileged slave who had the confidence of his or
her master and could go and come at will. Thus a form of communication
could be kept up between all members. In event of death of a member,
provision was made for decent burial, and all the members as far as possible
obtained permits to attend the funeral. Here and again their plan of getting
together was brought into play. In Richmond they would go to the church
by ones and twos and there sit as near together as convenient. At the close
of the service a line of march would be formed when sufficiently far from
the church to make it safe to do so. It is reported that the members were
faithful to each other and that every obligation was faithfully carried out.

This was the first form of insurance known to the Negro from which his
family received a benefit.62
All along of course a determining factor in the Negro's social progress
was the service that he was able to render to any community in which he
found himself as well as to his own people. Sometimes he was called upon
to do very hard work, sometimes very unpleasant or dangerous work; but if
he answered the call of duty and met an actual human need, his service had
to receive recognition. An example of such work was found in his conduct
in the course of the yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia in 1793.
Knowing that fever in general was not quite as severe in its ravages upon
Negroes as upon white people, the daily papers of Philadelphia called upon
the colored people in the town to come forward and assist with the sick. The
Negroes consented, and Absalom Jones and William Gray were appointed
to superintend the operations, though as usual it was upon Richard Allen
that much of the real responsibility fell. In September the fever increased
and upon the Negroes devolved also the duty of removing corpses. In the
course of their work they encountered much opposition; thus Jones said that
a white man threatened to shoot him if he passed his house with a corpse.
This man himself the Negroes had to bury three days afterwards. When the
epidemic was over, under date January 23, 1794, Matthew Clarkson, the
mayor, wrote the following testimonial: "Having, during the prevalence of
the late malignant disorder, had almost daily opportunities of seeing the
conduct of Absalom Jones and Richard Allen, and the people employed by
them to bury the dead, I with cheerfulness give this testimony of my
approbation of their proceedings, as far as the same came under my notice.
Their diligence, attention, and decency of deportment, afforded me, at the
time, much satisfaction." After the lapse of years it is with something of the
pathos of martyrdom that we are impressed by the service of these
struggling people, who by their self-abnegation and patriotism endeavored
to win and deserve the privileges of American citizenship.
All the while, in one way or another, the Negro was making advance in
education. As early as 1704 we have seen that Neau opened a school in
New York; there was Benezet's school in Philadelphia before the
Revolutionary War, and in 1798 one for Negroes was established in Boston.
In the first part of the century, we remember also, some Negroes were
apprenticed in Virginia under the oversight of the church. In 1764 the editor
of a paper in Williamsburg, Va., established a school for Negroes, and we

have seen that as many as one-sixth of the members of Andrew Bryan's
congregation in the far Southern city of Savannah could read by 1790.
Exceptional men, like Gloucester and Chavis, of course availed themselves
of such opportunities as came their way. All told, by 1800 the Negro had
received much more education than is commonly supposed.
Two persons—one in science and one in literature—because of their
unusual attainments attracted much attention. The first was Benjamin
Banneker of Maryland, and the second Phillis Wheatley of Boston.
Banneker in 1770 constructed the first clock striking the hours that was
made in America, and from 1792 to 1806 published an almanac adapted to
Maryland and the neighboring states. He was thoroughly scholarly in
mathematics and astronomy, and by his achievements won a reputation for
himself in Europe as well as in America. Phillis Wheatley, after a romantic
girlhood of transition from Africa to a favorable environment in Boston, in
1773 published her Poems on Various Subjects, which volume she followed
with several interesting occasional poems.63 For the summer of this year
she was the guest in England of the Countess of Huntingdon, whose
patronage she had won by an elegiac poem on George Whitefield; in
conversation even more than in verse-making she exhibited her refined taste
and accomplishment, and presents were showered upon her, one of them
being a copy of the magnificent 1770 Glasgow folio edition of Paradise
Lost, which was given by Brook Watson, Lord Mayor of London, and
which is now preserved in the library of Harvard University. In the earlier
years of the next century her poems found their way into the common
school readers. One of those in her representative volume was addressed to
Scipio Moorhead, a young Negro of Boston who had shown some talent for
painting. Thus even in a dark day there were those who were trying to
struggle upward to the light.
Footnote 51: (return)
"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, issued under the auspices of the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Association," 20 vols., Washington, 1903, II, 226-227.

Footnote 52: (return)
"A South Carolina Protest against Slavery (being a letter written from Henry
Laurens, second president of the Continental Congress, to his son, Colonel John
Laurens; dated Charleston, S.C., August 14th, 1776)." Reprinted by G.P. Putnam,
New York, 1861.

Footnote 53: (return)
Historical Notes on the Employment of Negroes in the American Army of the
Revolution, by G.H. Moore, New York, 1862, p. 15.

Footnote 54: (return)
Sparks's Washington, VIII, 322-323.

Footnote 55: (return)
Locke: Anti-Slavery in America, 97.

Footnote 56: (return)
See Williams: History of the Negro Race in America, I, 228-236.

Footnote 57: (return)
Locke, 124-126.

Footnote 58: (return)
Walter H. Brooks: The Silver Bluff Church.

Footnote 59: (return)
See letters in Journal of Negro History, January, 1916, 69-97.

Footnote 60: (return)
William H. Upton: Negro Masonry, Cambridge, 1899, 10.

Footnote 61: (return)
"A Charge Delivered to the African Lodge, June 24, 1797, at Menotomy. By the
Right Worshipful Prince Hall." (Boston?) 1797.

Footnote 62: (return)
Hampton Conference Report, No. 8

Footnote 63: (return)
For a full study see Chapter II of The Negro in Literature and Art.

CHAPTER IV
THE NEW WEST, THE SOUTH, AND THE WEST INDIES

The twenty years of the administrations of the first three presidents of the
United States—or, we might say, the three decades between 1790 and 1820
—constitute what might be considered the "Dark Ages" of Negro history;
and yet, as with most "Dark Ages," at even a glance below the surface these
years will be found to be throbbing with life, and we have already seen that
in them the Negro was doing what he could on his own account to move
forward. After the high moral stand of the Revolution, however, the period
seems quiescent, and it was indeed a time of definite reaction. This was
attributable to three great events: the opening of the Southwest with the
consequent demand for slaves, the Haytian revolution beginning in 1791,
and Gabriel's insurrection in 1800.
In no way was the reaction to be seen more clearly than in the decline of
the work of the American Convention of Delegates from the Abolition
Societies. After 1798 neither Connecticut nor Rhode Island sent delegates;
the Southern states all fell away by 1803; and while from New England
came the excuse that local conditions hardly made aggressive effort any
longer necessary, the lack of zeal in this section was also due to some extent
to a growing question as to the wisdom of interfering with slavery in the
South. In Virginia, that just a few years before had been so active, a statute
was now passed imposing a penalty of one hundred dollars on any person
who assisted a slave in asserting his freedom, provided he failed to establish
the claim; and another provision enjoined that no member of an abolition
society should serve as a juror in a freedom suit. Even the Pennsylvania
society showed signs of faintheartedness, and in 1806 the Convention
decided upon triennial rather than annual meetings. It did not again become
really vigorous until after the War of 1812.

1. The Cotton-Gin, the New Southwest, and the First Fugitive Slave Law

Of incalculable significance in the history of the Negro in America was
the series of inventions in England by Arkwright, Hargreaves, and
Crompton in the years 1768-79. In the same period came the discovery of
the power of steam by James Watt of Glasgow and its application to cotton
manufacture, and improvements followed quickly in printing and bleaching.
There yet remained one final invention of importance for the cultivation of
cotton on a large scale. Eli Whitney, a graduate of Yale, went to Georgia
and was employed as a teacher by the widow of General Greene on her
plantation. Seeing the need of some machine for the more rapid separating
of cotton-seed from the fiber, he labored until in 1793 he succeeded in
making his cotton-gin of practical value. The tradition is persistent,
however, that the real credit of the invention belongs to a Negro on the
plantation. The cotton-gin created great excitement throughout the South
and began to be utilized everywhere. The cultivation and exporting of the
staple grew by leaps and bounds. In 1791 only thirty-eight bales of standard
size were exported from the United States; in 1816, however, the cotton
sent out of the country was worth $24,106,000 and was by far the most
valuable article of export. The current price was 28 cents a pound. Thus at
the very time that the Northern states were abolishing slavery, an industry
that had slumbered became supreme, and the fate of hundreds of thousands
of Negroes was sealed.
Meanwhile the opening of the West went forward, and from Maine and
Massachusetts, Carolina and Georgia journeyed the pioneers to lay the
foundations of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Alabama and Mississippi. It
was an eager, restless caravan that moved, and sometimes more than a
hundred persons in a score of wagons were to be seen going from a single
town in the East—"Baptists and Methodists and Democrats." The careers of
Boone and Sevier and those who went with them, and the story of their
fights with the Indians, are now a part of the romance of American history.
In 1790 a cluster of log huts on the Ohio River was named in honor of the
Society of the Cincinnati. In 1792 Kentucky was admitted to the Union, the
article on slavery in her constitution encouraging the system and
discouraging emancipation, and Tennessee also entered as a slave state in
1796.

Of tremendous import to the Negro were the questions relating to the
Mississippi Territory. After the Revolution Georgia laid claim to great tracts
of land now comprising the states of Alabama and Mississippi, with the
exception of the strip along the coast claimed by Spain in connection with
Florida. This territory became a rich field for speculation, and its history in
its entirety makes a complicated story. A series of sales to what were known
as the Yazoo Companies, especially in that part of the present states whose
northern boundary would be a line drawn from the mouth of the Yazoo to
the Chattahoochee, resulted in conflicting claims, the last grant sale being
made in 1795 by a corrupt legislature at the price of a cent and a half an
acre. James Jackson now raised the cry of bribery and corruption, resigned
from the United States Senate, secured a seat in the state legislature, and on
February 13, 1796, carried through a bill rescinding the action of the
previous year,64 and the legislature burned the documents concerned with
the Yazoo sale in token of its complete repudiation of them. The purchasers
to whom the companies had sold lands now began to bombard Congress
with petitions and President Adams helped to arrive at a settlement by
which Georgia transferred the lands in question to the Federal Government,
which undertook to form of them the Mississippi Territory and to pay any
damages involved. In 1802 Georgia threw the whole burden upon the
central government by transferring to it all of her land beyond her present
boundaries, though for this she exacted an article favorable to slavery. All
was now made into the Mississippi Territory, to which Congress held out
the promise that it would be admitted as a state as soon as its population
numbered 60,000; but Alabama was separated from Mississippi in 1816.
The old matter of claims was not finally disposed of until an act of 1814
appropriated $5,000,000 for the purpose. In the same year Andrew
Jackson's decisive victories over the Creeks at Talladega and Horseshoe
Bend—of which more must be said—resulted in the cession of a vast tract
of the land of that unhappy nation and thus finally opened for settlement
three-fourths of the present state of Alabama.
It was in line with the advance that slavery was making in new territory
that there was passed the first Fugitive Slave Act (1793). This grew out of
the discussion incident to the seizure in 1791 at Washington, Penn., of a
Negro named John, who was taken to Virginia, and the correspondence
between the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Governor of Virginia with
reference to the case. The important third section of the act read as follows:

And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labor in
any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the
northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof,
shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the
person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent
or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such
fugitive from labor, and to take him or her before any judge
of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing
or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a
county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or
arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of
such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or
affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any
such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested,
doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he
or she fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming him
or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give
a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney,
which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said
fugitive from labor, to the state or territory from which he or
she fled.

It will be observed that by the terms of this enactment a master had the
right to recover a fugitive slave by proving his ownership before a
magistrate without a jury or any other of the ordinary forms of law. A
human being was thus placed at the disposal of the lowest of courts and
subjected to such procedure as was not allowed even in petty property suits.
A great field for the bribery of magistrates was opened up, and opportunity
was given for committing to slavery Negro men about whose freedom there
should have been no question.
By the close of the decade 1790-1800 the fear occasioned by the Haytian
revolution had led to a general movement against the importation of
Negroes, especially of those from the West Indies. Even Georgia in 1798
prohibited the importation of all slaves, and this provision, although very
loosely enforced, was never repealed. In South Carolina, however, to the
utter chagrin and dismay of the other states, importation, prohibited in
1787, was again legalized in 1803; and in the four years immediately

following 39,075 Negroes were brought to Charleston, most of these going
to the territories.65 When in 1803 Ohio was carved out of the Northwest
Territory as a free state, an attempt was made to claim the rest of the
territory for slavery, but this failed. In the congressional session of 1804-5
the matter of slavery in the newly acquired territory of Louisiana was
brought up, and slaves were allowed to be imported if they had come to the
United States before 1798, the purpose of this provision being to guard
against the consequences of South Carolina's recent act, although such a
clause never received rigid enforcement. The mention of Louisiana,
however, brings us concretely to Toussaint L'Ouverture, the greatest Negro
in the New World in the period and one of the greatest of all time.

2. Toussaint L'Ouverture, Louisiana, and the Formal Closing of the
Slave-Trade

When the French Revolution broke out in 1789, it was not long before its
general effects were felt in the West Indies. Of special importance was
Santo Domingo because of the commercial interests centered there. The
eastern end of the island was Spanish, but the western portion was French,
and in this latter part was a population of 600,000, of which number 50,000
were French Creoles, 50,000 mulattoes, and 500,000 pure Negroes. All
political and social privileges were monopolized by the Creoles, while the
Negroes were agricultural laborers and slaves; and between the two groups
floated the restless element of the free people of color.
When the General Assembly in France decreed equality of rights to all
citizens, the mulattoes of Santo Domingo made a petition for the enjoyment
of the same political privileges as the white people—to the unbounded
consternation of the latter. They were rewarded with a decree which was so
ambiguously worded that it was open to different interpretations and which
simply heightened the animosity that for years had been smoldering. A new
petition to the Assembly in 1791 primarily for an interpretation brought
forth on May 15 the explicit decree that the people of color were to have all
the rights and privileges of citizens, provided they had been born of free
parents on both sides. The white people were enraged by the decision,
turned royalist, and trampled the national cockade underfoot; and
throughout the summer armed strife and conflagration were the rule. To add

to the confusion the black slaves struck for freedom and on the night of
August 23, 1791, drenched the island in blood. In the face of these events
the Conventional Assembly rescinded its order, then announced that the
original decree must be obeyed, and it sent three commissioners with troops
to Santo Domingo, real authority being invested in Santhonax and Polverel.
On June 20, 1793, at Cape François trouble was renewed by a quarrel
between a mulatto and a white officer in the marines. The seamen came
ashore and loaned their assistance to the white people, and the Negroes now
joined forces with the mulattoes. In the battle of two days that followed the
arsenal was taken and plundered, thousands were killed in the streets, and
more than half of the town was burned. The French commissioners were the
unhappy witnesses of the scene, but they were practically helpless, having
only about a thousand troops. Santhonax, however, issued a proclamation
offering freedom to all slaves who were willing to range themselves under
the banner of the Republic. This was the first proclamation for the freeing
of slaves in Santo Domingo, and as a result of it many of the Negroes came
in and were enfranchised.
Soon after this proclamation Polverel left his colleague at the Cape and
went to Port au Prince, the capital of the West. Here things were quiet and
the cultivation of the crops was going forward as usual. The slaves were
soon unsettled, however, by the news of what was being done elsewhere,
and Polverel was convinced that emancipation could not be delayed and
that for the safety of the planters themselves it was necessary to extend it to
the whole island. In September (1793) he set in circulation from Aux Cayes
a proclamation to this effect, and at the same time he exhorted all the
planters in the vicinity who concurred in his work to register their names.
This almost all of them did, as they were convinced of the need of measures
for their personal safety; and on February 4, 1794, the Conventional
Assembly in Paris formally approved all that had been done by decreeing
the abolition of slavery in all the colonies of France.
All the while the Spanish and the English had been looking on with
interest and had even come to the French part of the island as if to aid in the
restoration of order. Among the former, at first in charge of a little royalist
band, was the Negro, Toussaint, later called L'Ouverture. He was then a
man in the prime of life, forty-eight years old, and already his experience
had given him the wisdom that was needed to bring peace in Santo

Domingo. In April, 1794, impressed by the decree of the Assembly, he
returned to the jurisdiction of France and took service under the Republic.
In 1796 he became a general of brigade; in 1797 general-in-chief, with the
military command of the whole colony.
He at once compelled the surrender of the English who had invaded his
country. With the aid of a commercial agreement with the United States, he
next starved out the garrison of his rival, the mulatto Rigaud, whom he
forced to consent to leave the country. He then imprisoned Roume, the
agent of the Directory, and assumed civil as well as military authority. He
also seized the Spanish part of the island, which had been ceded to France
some years before but had not been actually surrendered. He then, in May,
1801, gave to Santo Domingo a constitution by which he not only assumed
power for life but gave to himself the right of naming his successor; and all
the while he was awakening the admiration of the world by his bravery, his
moderation, and his genuine instinct for government.
Across the ocean, however, a jealous man was watching with interest the
career of the "gilded African." None knew better than Napoleon that it was
because he did not trust France that Toussaint had sought the friendship of
the United States, and none read better than he the logic of events. As
Adams says, "Bonaparte's acts as well as his professions showed that he
was bent on crushing democratic ideas, and that he regarded St. Domingo
as an outpost of American republicanism, although Toussaint had made a
rule as arbitrary as that of Bonaparte himself.... By a strange confusion of
events, Toussaint L'Ouverture, because he was a Negro, became the
champion of republican principles, with which he had nothing but the
instinct of personal freedom in common. Toussaint's government was less
republican than that of Bonaparte; he was doing by necessity in St.
Domingo what Bonaparte was doing by choice in France."66
This was the man to whom the United States ultimately owes the
purchase of Louisiana. On October 1, 1801, Bonaparte gave orders to
General Le Clerc for a great expedition against Santo Domingo. In January,
1802, Le Clerc appeared and war followed. In the course of this, Toussaint
—who was ordinarily so wise and who certainly knew that from Napoleon
he had most to fear—made the great mistake of his life and permitted
himself to be led into a conference on a French vessel. He was betrayed and
taken to France, where within the year he died of pneumonia in the dungeon

of Joux. Immediately there was a proclamation annulling the decree of 1794
giving freedom to the slaves. Bonaparte, however, had not estimated the
force of Toussaint's work, and to assist the Negroes in their struggle now
came a stalwart ally, yellow fever. By the end of the summer only one-
seventh of Le Clerc's army remained, and he himself died in November. At
once Bonaparte planned a new expedition. While he was arranging for the
leadership of this, however, the European war broke out again. Meanwhile
the treaty for the retrocession of the territory of Louisiana had not yet
received the signature of the Spanish king, because Godoy, the Spanish
representative, would not permit the signature to be affixed until all the
conditions were fulfilled; and toward the end of 1802 the civil officer at
New Orleans closed the Mississippi to the United States. Jefferson, at
length moved by the plea of the South, sent a special envoy, no less a man
than James Monroe, to France to negotiate the purchase; Bonaparte,
disgusted by the failure of his Egyptian expedition and his project for
reaching India, and especially by his failure in Santo Domingo, in need also
of ready money, listened to the offer; and the people of the United States—
who within the last few years have witnessed the spoliation of Hayti—have
not yet realized how much they owe to the courage of 500,000 Haytian
Negroes who refused to be slaves.
The slavery question in the new territory was a critical one. It was on
account of it that the Federalists had opposed the acquisition; the American
Convention endeavored to secure a provision like that of the Northwest
Ordinance; and the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends in Philadelphia
in 1805 prayed "that effectual measures may be adopted by Congress to
prevent the introduction of slavery into any of the territories of the United
States." Nevertheless the whole territory without regard to latitude was
thrown open to the system March 2, 1805.
In spite of this victory for slavery, however, the general force of the
events in Hayti was such as to make more certain the formal closing of the
slave-trade at the end of the twenty-year period for which the Constitution
had permitted it to run. The conscience of the North had been profoundly
stirred, and in the far South was the ever-present fear of a reproduction of
the events in Hayti. The agitation in England moreover was at last about to
bear fruit in the act of 1807 forbidding the slave-trade. In America it seems
from the first to have been an understood thing, especially by the Southern
representatives, that even if such an act passed it would be only irregularly

enforced, and the debates were concerned rather with the disposal of
illegally imported Africans and with the punishment of those concerned in
the importation than with the proper limitation of the traffic by water.67 On
March 2, 1807, the act was passed forbidding the slave-trade after the close
of the year. In course of time it came very near to being a dead letter, as
may be seen from presidential messages, reports of cabinet officers, letters
of collectors of revenue, letters of district attorneys, reports of committees
of Congress, reports of naval commanders, statements on the floor of
Congress, the testimony of eye-witnesses, and the complaints of home and
foreign anti-slavery societies. Fernandina and Galveston were only two of
the most notorious ports for smuggling. A regular chain of posts was
established from the head of St. Mary's River to the upper country, and
through the Indian nation, by means of which the Negroes were transferred
to every part of the country.68 If dealers wished to form a caravan they
would give an Indian alarm, so that the woods might be less frequented, and
if pursued in Georgia they would escape into Florida. One small schooner
contained one hundred and thirty souls. "They were almost packed into a
small space, between a floor laid over the water-casks and the deck—not
near three feet—insufficient for them to sit upright—and so close that
chafing against each other their bones pierced the skin and became galled
and ulcerated by the motion of the vessel." Many American vessels were
engaged in the trade under Spanish colors, and the traffic to Africa was
pursued with uncommon vigor at Havana, the crews of vessels being made
up of men of all nations, who were tempted by the high wages to be earned.
Evidently officials were negligent in the discharge of their duty, but even if
offenders were apprehended it did not necessarily follow that they would
receive effective punishment. President Madison in his message of
December 5, 1810, said, "It appears that American citizens are instrumental
in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws
of humanity, and in defiance of those of their own country"; and on January
7, 1819, the Register of the Treasury made to the House the amazing report
that "it doth not appear, from an examination of the records of this office,
and particularly of the accounts (to the date of their last settlement) of the
collectors of the customs, and of the several marshals of the United States,
that any forfeitures had been incurred under the said act." A supplementary
and compromising and ineffective act of 1818 sought to concentrate efforts
against smuggling by encouraging informers; and one of the following year

that authorized the President to "make such regulations and arrangements as
he may deem expedient for the safe keeping, support, and removal beyond
the limits of the United States" of recaptured Africans, and that bore
somewhat more fruit, was in large measure due to the colonization
movement and of importance in connection with the founding of Liberia.
Thus, while the formal closing of the slave-trade might seem to be a great
step forward, the laxness with which the decree was enforced places it
definitely in the period of reaction.

3. Gabriel's Insurrection and the Rise of the Negro Problem

Gabriel's insurrection of 1800 was by no means the most formidable
revolt that the Southern states witnessed. In design it certainly did not
surpass the scope of the plot of Denmark Vesey twenty-two years later, and
in actual achievement it was insignificant when compared not only with Nat
Turner's insurrection but even with the uprisings sixty years before. At the
last moment in fact a great storm that came up made the attempt to execute
the plan a miserable failure. Nevertheless coming as it did so soon after the
revolution in Hayti, and giving evidence of young and unselfish leadership,
the plot was regarded as of extraordinary significance.
Gabriel himself69 was an intelligent slave only twenty-four years old, and
his chief assistant was Jack Bowler, aged twenty-eight. Throughout the
summer of 1800 he matured his plan, holding meetings at which a brother
named Martin interpreted various texts from Scripture as bearing on the
situation of the Negroes. His insurrection was finally set for the first day of
September. It was well planned. The rendezvous was to be a brook six miles
from Richmond. Under cover of night the force of 1,100 was to march in
three columns on the city, then a town of 8,000 inhabitants, the right wing
to seize the penitentiary building which had just been converted into an
arsenal, while the left took possession of the powder-house. These two
columns were to be armed with clubs, and while they were doing their work
the central force, armed with muskets, knives, and pikes, was to begin the
carnage, none being spared except the French, whom it is significant that
the Negroes favored. In Richmond at the time there were not more than four
or five hundred men with about thirty muskets; but in the arsenal were
several thousand guns, and the powder-house was well stocked. Seizure of

the mills was to guarantee the insurrectionists a food supply; and
meanwhile in the country districts were the new harvests of corn, and flocks
and herds were fat in the fields.
On the day appointed for the uprising Virginia witnessed such a storm as
she had not seen in years. Bridges were carried away, and roads and
plantations completely submerged. Brook Swamp, the strategic point for the
Negroes, was inundated; and the country Negroes could not get into the
city, nor could those in the city get out to the place of rendezvous. The force
of more than a thousand dwindled to three hundred, and these, almost
paralyzed by fear and superstition, were dismissed. Meanwhile a slave who
did not wish to see his master killed divulged the plot, and all Richmond
was soon in arms.
A troop of United States cavalry was ordered to the city and arrests
followed quickly. Three hundred dollars was offered by Governor Monroe
for the arrest of Gabriel, and as much more for Jack Bowler. Bowler
surrendered, but it took weeks to find Gabriel. Six men were convicted and
condemned to be executed on September 12, and five more on September
18. Gabriel was finally captured on September 24 at Norfolk on a vessel
that had come from Richmond; he was convicted on October 3 and
executed on October 7. He showed no disposition to dissemble as to his
own plan; at the same time he said not one word that incriminated anybody
else. After him twenty-four more men were executed; then it began to
appear that some "mistakes" had been made and the killing ceased. About
the time of this uprising some Negroes were also assembled for an outbreak
in Suffolk County; there were alarms in Petersburg and in the country near
Edenton, N.C.; and as far away as Charleston the excitement was intense.
There were at least three other Negro insurrections of importance in the
period 1790-1820. When news came of the uprising of the slaves in Santo
Domingo in 1791, the Negroes in Louisiana planned a similar effort.70 They
might have succeeded better if they had not disagreed as to the hour of the
outbreak, when one of them informed the commandant. As a punishment
twenty-three of the slaves were hanged along the banks of the river and
their corpses left dangling for days; but three white men who assisted them
and who were really the most guilty of all, were simply sent out of the
colony. In Camden, S. C, on July 4, 1816, some other Negroes risked all for
independence.71 On various pretexts men from the country districts were

invited to the town on the appointed night, and different commands were
assigned, all except that of commander-in-chief, which position was to be
given to him who first forced the gates of the arsenal. Again the plot was
divulged by "a favorite and confidential slave," of whom we are told that
the state legislature purchased the freedom, settling upon him a pension for
life. About six of the leaders were executed. On or about May 1, 1819, there
was a plot to destroy the city of Augusta, Ga.72 The insurrectionists were to
assemble at Beach Island, proceed to Augusta, set fire to the place, and then
destroy the inhabitants. Guards were posted, and a white man who did not
answer when hailed was shot and fatally wounded. A Negro named Coot
was tried as being at the head of the conspiracy and sentenced to be
executed a few days later. Other trials followed his. Not a muscle moved
when the verdict was pronounced upon him.
The deeper meaning of such events as these could not escape the
discerning. More than one patriot had to wonder just whither the country
was drifting. Already it was evident that the ultimate problem transcended
the mere question of slavery, and many knew that human beings could not
always be confined to an artificial status. Throughout the period the slave-
trade seemed to flourish without any real check, and it was even
accentuated by the return to power of the old royalist houses of Europe after
the fall of Napoleon. Meanwhile it was observed that slave labor was
driving out of the South the white man of small means, and antagonism
between the men of the "up-country" and the seaboard capitalists was
brewing. The ordinary social life of the Negro in the South left much to be
desired, and conditions were not improved by the rapid increase. As for
slavery itself, no one could tell when or where or how the system would
end; all only knew that it was developing apace: and meanwhile there was
the sinister possibility of the alliance of the Negro and the Indian. Sincere
plans of gradual abolition were advanced in the South as well as the North,
but in the lower section they seldom got more than a respectful hearing. In
his "Dissertation on Slavery, with a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of it
in the State of Virginia," St. George Tucker, a professor of law in the
University of William and Mary, and one of the judges of the General Court
of Virginia, in 1796 advanced a plan by which he figured that after sixty
years there would be only one-third as many slaves as at first. At this
distance his proposal seems extremely conservative; at the time, however, it

was laid on the table by the Virginia House of Delegates, and from the
Senate the author received merely "a civil acknowledgment."
Two men of the period—widely different in temper and tone, but both
earnest seekers after truth—looked forward to the future with foreboding,
one with the eye of the scientist, the other with the vision of the seer.
Hezekiah Niles had full sympathy with the groping and striving of the
South; but he insisted that slavery must ultimately be abolished throughout
the country, that the minds of the slaves should be exalted, and that
reasonable encouragement should be given free Negroes.73 Said he: "We are
ashamed of the thing we practice;... there is no attribute of heaven that takes
part with us, and we know it. And in the contest that must come and will
come, there will be a heap of sorrows such as the world has rarely seen."74
On the other hand rose Lorenzo Dow, the foremost itinerant preacher of
the time, the first Protestant who expounded the gospel in Alabama and
Mississippi, and a reformer who at the very moment that cotton was
beginning to be supreme, presumed to tell the South that slavery was
wrong.75 Everywhere he arrested attention—with his long hair, his harsh
voice, and his wild gesticulation startling all conservative hearers. But he
was made in the mold of heroes. In his lifetime he traveled not less than two
hundred thousand miles, preaching to more people than any other man of
his time. Several times he went to Canada, once to the West Indies, and
three times to England, everywhere drawing great crowds about him. In A
Cry from the Wilderness he more than once clothed his thought in enigmatic
garb, but the meaning was always ultimately clear. At this distance, when
slavery and the Civil War are alike viewed in the perspective, the words of
the oracle are almost uncanny: "In the rest of the Southern states the
influence of these Foreigners will be known and felt in its time, and the
seeds from the HORY ALLIANCE and the DECAPIGANDI, who have a
hand in those grades of Generals, from the Inquisitor to the Vicar General
and down...!!! The STRUGGLE will be DREADFUL! the CUP will be
BITTER! and when the agony is over, those who survive may see better
days! FAREWELL!"
Footnote 64: (return)
Phillips in The South in the Building of the Nation, II, 154.

Footnote 65: (return)
DuBois: Suppression of the Slave-Trade, 90.

Footnote 66: (return)
History of the United States, I, 391-392.

Footnote 67: (return)
See DuBois, 95, ff.

Footnote 68: (return)
Niles's Register, XIV, 176 (May 2, 1818).

Footnote 69: (return)
His full name was Gabriel Prosser.

Footnote 70: (return)
Gayarré: History of Louisiana, III, 355.

Footnote 71: (return)
Holland: Refutation of Calumnies.

Footnote 72: (return)
Niles's Register, XVI, 213 (May 22, 1819).

Footnote 73: (return)
Register, XVI, 177 (May 8, 1819).

Footnote 74: (return)
Ibid., XVI, 213 (May 22, 1819).

Footnote 75: (return)
For full study see article "Lorenzo Dow," in Methodist Review and Journal of
Negro History, July, 1916, the same being included in Africa and the War, New
York, 1918.

CHAPTER V
INDIAN AND NEGRO

It is not the purpose of the present chapter to give a history of the
Seminole Wars, or even to trace fully the connection of the Negro with
these contests. We do hope to show at least, however, that the Negro was
more important than anything else as an immediate cause of controversy,
though the general pressure of the white man upon the Indian would in time
of course have made trouble in any case. Strange parallels constantly
present themselves, and incidentally it may be seen that the policy of the
Government in force in other and even later years with reference to the
Negro was at this time also very largely applied in the case of the Indian.

1. Creek, Seminole, and Negro to 1817: The War of 1812

On August 7, 1786, the Continental Congress by a definite and far-
reaching ordinance sought to regulate for the future the whole conduct of
Indian affairs. Two great districts were formed, one including the territory
north of the Ohio and west of the Hudson, and the other including that south
of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi; and for anything pertaining to the
Indian in each of these two great tracts a superintendent was appointed. As
affecting the Negro the southern district was naturally of vastly more
importance than the northern. In the eastern portion of this, mainly in what
are now Georgia, eastern Tennessee, and eastern Alabama, were the
Cherokees and the great confederacy of the Creeks, while toward the west,
in the present Mississippi and western Alabama, were the Chickasaws and
the Choctaws. Of Muskhogean stock, and originally a part of the Creeks,
were the Seminoles ("runaways"), who about 1750, under the leadership of
a great chieftain, Secoffee, separated from the main confederacy, which had
its center in southwest Georgia just a little south of Columbus, and overran

the peninsula of Florida. In 1808 came another band under Micco Hadjo to
the present site of Tallahassee. The Mickasukie tribe was already on the
ground in the vicinity of this town, and at first its members objected to the
newcomers, who threatened to take their lands from them; but at length all
abode peaceably together under the general name of Seminoles. About 1810
these people had twenty towns, the chief ones being Mikasuki and
Tallahassee. From the very first they had received occasional additions from
the Yemassee, who had been driven out of South Carolina, and of fugitive
Negroes.
By the close of the eighteenth century all along the frontier the Indian
had begun to feel keenly the pressure of the white man, and in his struggle
with the invader he recognized in the oppressed Negro a natural ally. Those
Negroes who by any chance became free were welcomed by the Indians,
fugitives from bondage found refuge with them, and while Indian chiefs
commonly owned slaves, the variety of servitude was very different from
that under the white man. The Negroes were comparatively free, and
intermarriage was frequent; thus a mulatto woman who fled from bondage
married a chief and became the mother of a daughter who in course of time
became the wife of the famous Osceola. This very close connection of the
Negro with the family life of the Indian was the determining factor in the
resistance of the Seminoles to the demands of the agents of the United
States, and a reason, stronger even than his love for his old hunting-ground,
for his objection to removal to new lands beyond the Mississippi. Very
frequently the Indian could not give up his Negroes without seeing his own
wife and children led away into bondage; and thus to native courage and
pride was added the instinct of a father for the preservation of his own.
In the two wars between the Americans and the English it was but natural
that the Indian should side with the English, and it was in some measure but
a part of the game that he should receive little consideration at the hands of
the victor. In the politics played by the English and the French, the English
and the Spaniards, and finally between the Americans and all Europeans,
the Indian was ever the loser. In the very early years of the Carolina
colonies, some effort was made to enslave the Indians; but such servants
soon made their way to the Indian country, and it was not long before they
taught the Negroes to do likewise. This constant escape of slaves, with its
attendant difficulties, largely accounted for the establishing of the free
colony of Georgia between South Carolina and the Spanish possession,

Florida. It was soon evident, however, that the problem had been
aggravated rather than settled. When Congress met in 1776 it received from
Georgia a communication setting forth the need of "preventing slaves from
deserting their masters"; and as soon as the Federal Government was
organized in 1789 it received also from Georgia an urgent request for
protection from the Creeks, who were charged with various ravages, and
among other documents presented was a list of one hundred and ten
Negroes who were said to have left their masters during the Revolution and
to have found refuge among the Creeks. Meanwhile by various treaties,
written and unwritten, the Creeks were being forced toward the western line
of the state, and in any agreement the outstanding stipulation was always
for the return of fugitive slaves. For a number of years the Creeks retreated
without definitely organized resistance. In the course of the War of 1812,
however, moved by the English and by a visit from Tecumseh, they
suddenly rose, and on August 30, 1813, under the leadership of
Weathersford, they attacked Fort Mims, a stockade thirty-five miles north of
Mobile. The five hundred and fifty-three men, women, and children in this
place were almost completely massacred. Only fifteen white persons
escaped by hiding in the woods, a number of Negroes being taken prisoner.
This occurrence spurred the whole Southwest to action. Volunteers were
called for, and the Tennessee legislature resolved to exterminate the whole
tribe. Andrew Jackson with Colonel Coffee administered decisive defeats at
Talladega and Tohopeka or Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River, and
the Creeks were forced to sue for peace. By the treaty of Fort Jackson
(August 9, 1814) the future president, now a major general in the regular
army and in command at Mobile, demanded that the unhappy nation give
up more than half of its land as indemnity for the cost of the war, that it
hold no communication with a Spanish garrison or town, that it permit the
necessary roads to be made or forts to be built in any part of the territory,
and that it surrender the prophets who had instigated the war. This last
demand was ridiculous, or only for moral effect, for the so-called prophets
had already been left dead on the field of battle. The Creeks were quite
broken, however, and Jackson passed on to fame and destiny at the Battle of
New Orleans, January 8, 1815. In April of this year he was made
commander-in-chief of the Southern Division.76 It soon developed that his
chief task in this capacity was to reckon with the Seminoles.

On the Appalachicola River the British had rebuilt an old fort, calling it
the British Post on the Appalachicola. Early in the summer of 1815 the
commander, Nicholls, had occasion to go to London, and he took with him
his troops, the chief Francis, and several Creeks, leaving in the fort seven
hundred and sixty-three barrels of cannon powder, twenty-five hundred
muskets, and numerous pistols and other weapons of war. The Negroes
from Georgia who had come to the vicinity, who numbered not less than a
thousand, and who had some well kept farms up and down the banks of the
river, now took charge of the fort and made it their headquarters. They were
joined by some Creeks, and the so-called Negro Fort soon caused itself to
be greatly feared by any white people who happened to live near. Demands
on the Spanish governor for its suppression were followed by threats of the
use of the soldiery of the United States; and General Gaines, under orders in
the section, wrote to Jackson asking authority to build near the boundary
another post that might be used as the base for any movement that had as its
aim to overawe the Negroes. Jackson readily complied with the request,
saying, "I have no doubt that this fort has been established by some villains
for the purpose of murder, rapine, and plunder, and that it ought to be blown
up regardless of the ground it stands on. If you have come to the same
conclusion, destroy it, and restore the stolen Negroes and property to their
rightful owners." Gaines accordingly built Fort Scott not far from where the
Flint and the Chattahoochee join to form the Appalachicola. It was
necessary for Gaines to pass the Negro Fort in bringing supplies to his own
men; and on July 17, 1816, the boats of the Americans were within range of
the fort and opened fire. There was some preliminary shooting, and then,
since the walls were too stubborn to be battered down by a light fire, "a ball
made red-hot in the cook's galley was put in the gun and sent screaming
over the wall and into the magazine. The roar, the shock, the scene that
followed, may be imagined, but not described. Seven hundred barrels of
gunpowder tore the earth, the fort, and all the wretched creatures in it to
fragments. Two hundred and seventy men, women, and children died on the
spot. Of sixty-four taken out alive, the greater number died soon after."77
The Seminoles—in the West more and more identified with the Creeks—
were angered by their failure to recover the lands lost by the treaty of Fort
Jackson and also by the building of Fort Scott. One settlement, Fowltown,
fifteen miles east of Fort Scott, was especially excited and in the fall of
1817 sent a warning to the Americans "not to cross or cut a stick of timber

on the east side of the Flint." The warning was regarded as a challenge;
Fowltown was taken on a morning in November, and the Seminole Wars
had begun.

2. First Seminole War and the Treaties of Indian Spring and Fort
Moultrie

In the course of the First Seminole War (1817-18) Jackson ruthlessly laid
waste the towns of the Indians; he also took Pensacola, and he awakened
international difficulties by his rather summary execution of two British
subjects, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, who were traders to the Indians and
sustained generally pleasant relations with them. For his conduct, especially
in this last instance, he was severely criticized in Congress, but it is
significant of his rising popularity that no formal vote of censure could pass
against him. On the cession of Florida to the United States he was
appointed territorial governor; but he served for a brief term only. As early
as 1822 he was nominated for the presidency by the legislature of
Tennessee, and in 1823 he was sent to the United States Senate.
Of special importance in the history of the Creeks about this time was the
treaty of Indian Spring, of January 8, 1821, an iniquitous agreement in the
signing of which bribery and firewater were more than usually present. By
this the Creeks ceded to the United States, for the benefit of Georgia, five
million acres of their most valuable land. In cash they were to receive
$200,000, in payments extending over fourteen years. The United States
Government moreover was to hold $250,000 as a fund from which the
citizens of Georgia were to be reimbursed for any "claims" (for runaway
slaves of course) that the citizens of the state had against the Creeks prior to
the year 1802.78 In the actual execution of this agreement a slave was
frequently estimated at two or three times his real value, and the Creeks
were expected to pay whether the fugitive was with them or not. All
possible claims, however, amounted to $101,000. This left $149,000 of the
money in the hands of the Government. This sum was not turned over to the
Indians, as one might have expected, but retained until 1834, when the
Georgia citizens interested petitioned for a division. The request was
referred to the Commission on Indian Affairs, and the chairman, Gilmer of
Georgia, was in favor of dividing the money among the petitioners as

compensation for "the offspring which the slaves would have borne had
they remained in bondage." This suggestion was rejected at the time, but
afterwards the division was made nevertheless; and history records few
more flagrant violations of all principles of honor and justice.
The First Seminole War, while in some ways disastrous to the Indians,
was in fact not much more than the preliminary skirmish of a conflict that
was not to cease until 1842. In general the Indians, mindful of the ravages
of the War of 1812, did not fully commit themselves and bided their time.
They were in fact so much under cover that they led the Americans to
underestimate their real numbers. When the cession of Florida was formally
completed, however (July 17, 1821), they were found to be on the very best
spots of land in the territory. On May 20, 1822, Colonel Gad Humphreys
was appointed agent to them, William P. Duval as governor of the territory
being ex-officio superintendent of Indian affairs. Altogether the Indians at
this time, according to the official count, numbered 1,594 men, 1,357
women, and 993 children, a total of 3,944, with 150 Negro men and 650
Negro women and children.79 In the interest of these people Humphreys
labored faithfully for eight years, and not a little of the comparative quiet in
his period of service is to be credited to his own sympathy, good sense, and
patience.
In the spring of 1823 the Indians were surprised by the suggestion of a
treaty that would definitely limit their boundaries and outline their future
relations with the white man. The representative chiefs had no desire for a
conference, were exceedingly reluctant to meet the commissioners, and
finally came to the meeting prompted only by the hope that such terms
might be arrived at as would permanently guarantee them in the peaceable
possession of their homes. Over the very strong protest of some of them a
treaty was signed at Fort Moultrie, on the coast five miles below St.
Augustine, September 18, 1823, William P. Duval, James Gadsden, and
Bernard Segui being the representatives of the United States. By this treaty
we learn that the Indians, in view of the fact that they have "thrown
themselves on, and have promised to continue under, the protection of the
United States, and of no other nation, power, or sovereignty; and in
consideration of the promises and stipulations hereinafter made, do cede
and relinquish all claim or title which they have to the whole territory of
Florida, with the exception of such district of country as shall herein be
allotted to them." They are to have restricted boundaries, the extreme point

of which is nowhere to be nearer than fifteen miles to the Gulf of Mexico.
The United States promises to distribute, as soon as the Indians are settled
on their new land, under the direction of their agent, "implements of
husbandry, and stock of cattle and hogs to the amount of six thousand
dollars, and an annual sum of five thousand dollars a year for twenty
successive years"; and "to restrain and prevent all white persons from
hunting, settling, or otherwise intruding" upon the land set apart for the
Indians, though any American citizen, lawfully authorized, is to pass and
repass within the said district and navigate the waters thereof "without any
hindrance, toll or exactions from said tribes." For facilitating removal and
as compensation for any losses or inconvenience sustained, the United
States is to furnish rations of corn, meat, and salt for twelve months, with a
special appropriation of $4,500 for those who have made improvements,
and $2,000 more for the facilitating of transportation. The agent, sub-agent,
and interpreter are to reside within the Indian boundary "to watch over the
interests of said tribes"; and the United States further undertake "as an
evidence of their humane policy towards said tribes" to allow $1,000 a year
for twenty years for the establishment of a school and $1,000 a year for the
same period for the support of a gun- and blacksmith. Of supreme
importance is Article 7: "The chiefs and warriors aforesaid, for themselves
and tribes, stipulate to be active and vigilant in the preventing the retreating
to, or passing through, the district of country assigned them, of any
absconding slaves, or fugitives from justice; and further agree to use all
necessary exertions to apprehend and deliver the same to the agent, who
shall receive orders to compensate them agreeably to the trouble and
expense incurred." We have dwelt at length upon the provisions of this
treaty because it contained all the seeds of future trouble between the white
man and the Indian. Six prominent chiefs—Nea Mathla, John Blunt, Tuski
Hajo, Mulatto King, Emathlochee, and Econchattimico—refused absolutely
to sign, and their marks were not won until each was given a special
reservation of from two to four square miles outside the Seminole
boundaries. Old Nea Mathla in fact never did accept the treaty in good faith,
and when the time came for the execution of the agreement he summoned
his warriors to resistance. Governor Duval broke in upon his war council,
deposed the war leaders, and elevated those who favored peaceful removal.
The Seminoles now retired to their new lands, but Nea Mathla was driven
into practical exile. He retired to the Creeks, by whom he was raised to the

dignity of a chief. It was soon realized by the Seminoles that they had been
restricted to some pine woods by no means as fertile as their old lands, nor
were matters made better by one or two seasons of drought. To allay their
discontent twenty square miles more, to the north, was given them, but to
offset this new cession their rations were immediately reduced.

3. From the Treaty of Fort Moultrie to the Treaty of Payne's Landing

Now succeeded ten years of trespassing, of insult, and of increasing
enmity. Kidnapers constantly lurked near the Indian possessions, and
instances of injury unredressed increased the bitterness and rancor. Under
date May 20, 1825, Humphreys80 wrote to the Indian Bureau that the white
settlers were already thronging to the vicinity of the Indian reservation and
were likely to become troublesome. As to some recent disturbances, writing
from St. Augustine February 9, 1825, he said: "From all I can learn here
there is little doubt that the disturbances near Tallahassee, which have of
late occasioned so much clamor, were brought about by a course of
unjustifiable conduct on the part of the whites, similar to that which it
appears to be the object of the territorial legislature to legalize. In fact, it is
stated that one Indian had been so severely whipped by the head of the
family which was destroyed in these disturbances, as to cause his death; if
such be the fact, the subsequent act of the Indians, however lamentable,
must be considered as one of retaliation, and I can not but think it is to be
deplored that they were afterwards 'hunted' with so unrelenting a revenge."
The word hunted was used advisedly by Humphreys, for, as we shall see
later, when war was renewed one of the common means of fighting
employed by the American officers was the use of bloodhounds. Sometimes
guns were taken from the Indians so that they had nothing with which to
pursue the chase. On one occasion, when some Indians were being marched
to headquarters, a woman far advanced in pregnancy was forced onward
with such precipitancy as to produce a premature delivery, which almost
terminated her life. More far-reaching than anything else, however, was the
constant denial of the rights of the Indian in court in cases involving white
men. As Humphreys said, the great disadvantage under which the
Seminoles labored as witnesses "destroyed everything like equality of
rights." Some of the Negroes that they had, had been born among them, and
some others had been purchased from white men and duly paid for. No

receipts were given, however, and efforts were frequently made to recapture
the Negroes by force. The Indian, conscious of his rights, protested
earnestly against such attempts and naturally determined to resist all efforts
to wrest from him his rightfully acquired property.
By 1827, however, the territorial legislature had begun to memorialize
Congress and to ask for the complete removal of the Indians. Meanwhile
the Negro question was becoming more prominent, and orders from the
Department of War, increasingly peremptory, were made on Humphreys for
the return of definite Negroes. For Duval and Humphreys, however, who
had actually to execute the commissions, the task was not always so easy.
Under date March 20, 1827, the former wrote to the latter: "Many of the
slaves belonging to the whites are now in the possession of the white
people; these slaves can not be obtained for their Indian owners without a
lawsuit, and I see no reason why the Indians shall be compelled to surrender
all slaves claimed by our citizens when this surrender is not mutual."
Meanwhile the annuity began to be withheld from the Indians in order to
force them to return Negroes, and a friendly chief, Hicks, constantly waited
upon Humphreys only to find the agent little more powerful than himself.
Thus matters continued through 1829 and 1830. In violation of all legal
procedure, the Indians were constantly required to relinquish beforehand
property in their possession to settle a question of claim. On March 21,
1830, Humphreys was informed that he was no longer agent for the Indians.
He had been honestly devoted to the interest of these people, but his efforts
were not in harmony with the policy of the new administration.
Just what that policy was may be seen from Jackson's special message on
Indian affairs of February 22, 1831. The Senate had asked for information
as to the conduct of the Government in connection with the act of March
30, 1802, "to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to
preserve peace on the frontiers." The Nullification controversy was in
everybody's mind, and already friction had arisen between the new
President and the abolitionists. In spite of Jackson's attitude toward South
Carolina, his message in the present instance was a careful defense of the
whole theory of state rights. Nothing in the conduct of the Federal
Government toward the Indian tribes, he insisted, had ever been intended to
attack or even to call in question the rights of a sovereign state. In one way
the Southern states had seemed to be an exception. "As early as 1784 the
settlements within the limits of North Carolina were advanced farther to the

west than the authority of the state to enforce an obedience of its laws."
After the Revolution the tribes desolated the frontiers. "Under these
circumstances the first treaties, in 1785 and 1790, with the Cherokees, were
concluded by the Government of the United States." Nothing of all this,
said Jackson, had in any way affected the relation of any Indians to the state
in which they happened to reside, and he concluded as follows: "Toward
this race of people I entertain the kindest feelings, and am not sensible that
the views which I have taken of their true interests are less favorable to
them than those which oppose their emigration to the West. Years since I
stated to them my belief that if the States chose to extend their laws over
them it would not be in the power of the Federal Government to prevent it.
My opinion remains the same, and I can see no alternative for them but that
of their removal to the West or a quiet submission to the state laws. If they
prefer to remove, the United States agree to defray their expenses, to supply
them the means of transportation and a year's support after they reach their
new homes—a provision too liberal and kind to bear the stamp of injustice.
Either course promises them peace and happiness, whilst an obstinate
perseverance in the effort to maintain their possessions independent of the
state authority can not fail to render their condition still more helpless and
miserable. Such an effort ought, therefore, to be discountenanced by all who
sincerely sympathize in the fortunes of this peculiar people, and especially
by the political bodies of the Union, as calculated to disturb the harmony of
the two Governments and to endanger the safety of the many blessings
which they enable us to enjoy."
The policy thus formally enunciated was already in practical operation.
In the closing days of the administration of John Quincy Adams a
delegation came to Washington to present to the administration the
grievances of the Cherokee nation. The formal reception of the delegation
fell to the lot of Eaton, the new Secretary of War. The Cherokees asserted
that not only did they have no rights in the Georgia courts in cases
involving white men, but that they had been notified by Georgia that all
laws, usages, and agreements in force in the Indian country would be null
and void after June 1, 1830; and naturally they wanted the interposition of
the Federal Government. Eaton replied at great length, reminding the
Cherokees that they had taken sides with England in the War of 1812, that
they were now on American soil only by sufferance, and that the central
government could not violate the rights of the state of Georgia; and he

strongly advised immediate removal to the West. The Cherokees, quite
broken, acted in accord with this advice; and so in 1832 did the Creeks, to
whom Jackson had sent a special talk urging removal as the only basis of
Federal protection.
To the Seminoles as early as 1827 overtures for removal had been made;
but before the treaty of Fort Moultrie had really become effective they had
been intruded upon and they in turn had become more slow about returning
runaway slaves. From some of the clauses in the treaty of Fort Moultrie, as
some of the chiefs were quick to point out, the understanding was that the
same was to be in force for twenty years; and they felt that any slowness on
their part about the return of Negroes was fully nullified by the efforts of
the professional Negro stealers with whom they had to deal.
Early in 1832, however, Colonel James Gadsden of Florida was directed
by Lewis Cass, the Secretary of War, to enter into negotiation for the
removal of the Indians of Florida. There was great opposition to a
conference, but the Indians were finally brought together at Payne's
Landing on the Ocklawaha River just seventeen miles from Fort King. Here
on May 9, 1832, was wrested from them a treaty which is of supreme
importance in the history of the Seminoles. The full text was as follows:

TREATY OF PAYNE'S LANDING,
MAY 9, 1832
Whereas, a treaty between the United States and the
Seminole nation of Indians was made and concluded at
Payne's Landing, on the Ocklawaha River, on the 9th of
May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, by James
Gadsden, commissioner on the part of the United States, and
the chiefs and headmen of said Seminole nation of Indians,
on the part of said nation; which treaty is in the words
following, to wit:
The Seminole Indians, regarding with just respect the
solicitude manifested by the President of the United States
for the improvement of their condition, by recommending a
removal to the country more suitable to their habits and
wants than the one they at present occupy in the territory of
Florida, are willing that their confidential chiefs, Jumper,
Fuch-a-lus-to-had-jo, Charley Emathla, Coi-had-jo, Holati-

Emathla, Ya-ha-had-jo, Sam Jones, accompanied by their
agent, Major John Phagan, and their faithful interpreter,
Abraham, should be sent, at the expense of the United
States, as early as convenient, to examine the country
assigned to the Creeks, west of the Mississippi River, and
should they be satisfied with the character of the country,
and of the favorable disposition of the Creeks to re-unite
with the Seminoles as one people; the articles of the
compact and agreement herein stipulated, at Payne's
Landing, on the Ocklawaha River, this ninth day of May,
one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, between James
Gadsden, for and in behalf of the government of the United
States, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen, for and in
behalf of the Seminole Indians, shall be binding on the
respective parties.
Article I. The Seminole Indians relinquish to the United
States all claim to the land they at present occupy in the
territory of Florida, and agree to emigrate to the country
assigned to the Creeks, west of the Mississippi River, it
being understood that an additional extent of country,
proportioned to their numbers, will be added to the Creek
territory, and that the Seminoles will be received as a
constituent part of the Creek nation, and be re-admitted to all
the privileges as a member of the same.
Article II. For and in consideration of the relinquishment
of claim in the first article of this agreement, and in full
compensation for all the improvements which may have
been made on the lands thereby ceded, the United States
stipulate to pay to the Seminole Indians fifteen thousand
four hundred ($15,400) dollars, to be divided among the
chiefs and warriors of the several towns, in a ratio
proportioned to their population, the respective proportions
of each to be paid on their arrival in the country they consent
to remove to; it being understood that their faithful
interpreters, Abraham and Cudjo, shall receive two hundred
dollars each, of the above sum, in full remuneration of the
improvements to be abandoned on the lands now cultivated

by them.
Article III. The United States agree to distribute, as they
arrive at their new homes in the Creek territory, west of the
Mississippi River, a blanket and a homespun frock to each of
the warriors, women and children, of the Seminole tribe of
Indians.
Article IV. The United States agree to extend the annuity
for the support of a blacksmith, provided for in the sixth
article of the treaty at Camp Moultrie, for ten (10) years
beyond the period therein stipulated, and in addition to the
other annuities secured under that treaty, the United States
agree to pay the sum of three thousand ($3,000) dollars a
year for fifteen (15) years, commencing after the removal of
the whole tribe; these sums to be added to the Creek
annuities, and the whole amount to be so divided that the
chiefs and warriors of the Seminole Indians may receive
their equitable proportion of the same, as members of the
Creek confederation.
Article V. The United States will take the cattle belonging
to the Seminoles, at the valuation of some discreet person, to
be appointed by the President, and the same shall be paid for
in money to the respective owners, after their arrival at their
new homes; or other cattle, such as may be desired, will be
furnished them; notice being given through their agent, of
their wishes upon this subject, before their removal, that
time may be afforded to supply the demand.
Article VI. The Seminoles being anxious to be relieved
from the repeated vexatious demands for slaves, and other
property, alleged to have been stolen and destroyed by them,
so that they may remove unembarrassed to their new homes,
the United States stipulate to have the same property
(properly) investigated, and to liquidate such as may be
satisfactorily established, provided the amount does not
exceed seven thousand ($7,000) dollars.
Article VII. The Seminole Indians will remove within
three (3) years after the ratification of this agreement, and
the expenses of their removal shall be defrayed by the

United States, and such subsistence shall also be furnished
them, for a term not exceeding twelve (12) months after
their arrival at their new residence, as in the opinion of the
President their numbers and circumstances may require; the
emigration to commence as early as practicable in the year
eighteen hundred and thirty-three (1833), and with those
Indians at present occupying the Big Swamp, and other parts
of the country beyond the limits, as defined in the second
article of the treaty concluded at Camp Moultrie Creek, so
that the whole of that proportion of the Seminoles may be
removed within the year aforesaid, and the remainder of the
tribe, in about equal proportions, during the subsequent
years of eighteen hundred and thirty-four and five (1834 and
1835).
In testimony whereof, the commissioner, James Gadsden,
and the undersigned chiefs and head-men of the Seminole
Indians, have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed
their seals.
Done at camp, at Payne's Landing, on the Ocklawaha
River, in the territory of Florida, on this ninth day of May,
one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the
independence of the United States of America, the fifty-
sixth.
(Signed) James Gadsden. L.S.
Holati Emathlar, his X mark.
Jumper, his X mark.
Cudjo, Interpreter, his X mark.
Erastus Rodgers.
B. Joscan.
Holati Emathlar, his X mark.
Jumper, his X mark.
Fuch-ta-lus-ta-Hadjo, his X mark.
Charley Emathla, his X mark.
Coi Hadjo, his X mark.
Ar-pi-uck-i, or Sam
Jones, his X mark.
Ya-ha-Hadjo, his X mark.

Mico-Noha, his X mark.
Tokose Emathla, or
John Hicks, his X mark.
Cat-sha-Tustenuggee, his X mark.
Holat-a-Micco, his X mark.
Hitch-it-i-Micco, his X mark.
E-na-hah, his X mark.
Ya-ha-Emathla-Chopco, his X mark.
Moki-his-she-lar-ni, his X mark.
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Jackson,
President of the United States of America, having seen and
considered said treaty, do, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, as expressed by their resolution of the
eighth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-
four, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause
and article thereof.
In witness whereof, I have caused the seal of the United
States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with
my hand. Done at the city of Washington, this twelfth day of
April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and thirty-four, and of the independence of the United States
of America, the fifty-eighth.
(Signed) ANDREW JACKSON. By the President,
LOUIS MCLANE, Secretary of State.

It will be seen that by the terms of this document seven chiefs were to go
and examine the country assigned to the Creeks, and that they were to be
accompanied by Major John Phagan, the successor of Humphreys, and the
Negro interpreter Abraham. The character of Phagan may be seen from the
facts that he was soon in debt to different ones of the Indians and to
Abraham, and that he was found to be short in his accounts. While the
Indian chiefs were in the West, three United States commissioners conferred
with them as to the suitability of the country for a future home, and at Fort
Gibson, Arkansas, March 28, 1833, they were beguiled into signing an
additional treaty in which occurred the following sentence: "And the
undersigned Seminole chiefs, delegated as aforesaid, on behalf of their
nation, hereby declare themselves well satisfied with the location provided

for them by the commissioners, and agree that their nation shall commence
the removal to their new home as soon as the government will make
arrangements for their emigration, satisfactory to the Seminole nation."
They of course had no authority to act on their own initiative, and when all
returned in April, 1833, and Phagan explained what had happened, the
Seminoles expressed themselves in no uncertain terms. The chiefs who had
gone West denied strenuously that they had signed away any rights to land,
but they were nevertheless upbraided as the agents of deception. Some of
the old chiefs, of whom Micanopy was the highest authority, resolved to
resist the efforts to dispossess them; and John Hicks, who seems to have
been substituted for Sam Jones on the commission, was killed because he
argued too strongly for migration. Meanwhile the treaty of Payne's Landing
was ratified by the Senate of the United States and proclaimed as in force
by President Jackson April 12, 1834, and in connection with it the
supplementary treaty of Fort Gibson was also ratified. The Seminoles,
however, were not showing any haste about removing, and ninety of the
white citizens of Alachua County sent a protest to the President alleging
that the Indians were not returning their fugitive slaves. Jackson was made
angry, and without even waiting for the formal ratification of the treaties, he
sent the document to the Secretary of War, with an endorsement on the back
directing him "to inquire into the alleged facts, and if found to be true, to
direct the Seminoles to prepare to remove West and join the Creeks."
General Wiley Thompson was appointed to succeed Phagan as agent, and
General Duncan L. Clinch was placed in command of the troops whose
services it was thought might be needed. It was at this juncture that Osceola
stepped forward as the leading spirit of his people.

4. Osceola and the Second Seminole War

Osceola (Asseola, or As-se-he-ho-lar, sometimes called Powell because
after his father's death his mother married a white man of that name81) was
not more than thirty years of age. He was slender, of only average height,
and slightly round-shouldered; but he was also well proportioned, muscular,
and capable of enduring great fatigue. He had light, deep, restless eyes, and
a shrill voice, and he was a great admirer of order and technique. He
excelled in athletic contests and in his earlier years had taken delight in
engaging in military practice with the white men. As he was neither by

descent nor formal election a chief, he was not expected to have a voice in
important deliberations; but he was a natural leader and he did more than
any other man to organize the Seminoles to resistance. It is hardly too much
to say that to his single influence was due a contest that ultimately cost
$10,000,000 and the loss of thousands of lives. Never did a patriot fight
more valiantly for his own, and it stands to the eternal disgrace of the
American arms that he was captured under a flag of truce.
It is well to pause for a moment and reflect upon some of the deeper
motives that entered into the impending contest. A distinguished
congressman,82 speaking in the House of Representatives a few years later,
touched eloquently upon some of the events of these troublous years. Let us
remember that this was the time of the formation of anti-slavery societies,
of pronounced activity on the part of the abolitionists, and recall also that
Nat Turner's insurrection was still fresh in the public mind. Giddings stated
clearly the issue as it appeared to the people of the North when he said, "I
hold that if the slaves of Georgia or any other state leave their masters, the
Federal Government has no constitutional authority to employ our army or
navy for their recapture, or to apply the national treasure to repurchase
them." There could be no question of the fact that the war was very largely
one over fugitive slaves. Under date October 28, 1834, General Thompson
wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs: "There are many very likely
Negroes in this nation [the Seminole]. Some of the whites in the adjacent
settlements manifest a restless desire to obtain them, and I have no doubt
that Indian raised Negroes are now in the possession of the whites." In a
letter dated January 20, 1834, Governor Duval had already said to the same
official: "The slaves belonging to the Indians have a controlling influence
over the minds of their masters, and are entirely opposed to any change of
residence." Six days later he wrote: "The slaves belonging to the Indians
must be made to fear for themselves before they will cease to influence the
minds of their masters.... The first step towards the emigration of these
Indians must be the breaking up of the runaway slaves and the outlaw
Indians." And the New Orleans Courier of July 27, 1839, revealed all the
fears of the period when it said, "Every day's delay in subduing the
Seminoles increases the danger of a rising among the serviles."
All the while injustice and injury to the Indians continued.
Econchattimico, well known as one of those chiefs to whom special
reservations had been given by the treaty of Fort Moultrie, was the owner of

twenty slaves valued at $15,000. Observing Negro stealers hovering around
his estate, he armed himself and his men. The kidnapers then furthered their
designs by circulating the report that the Indians were arming themselves
for union with the main body of Seminoles for the general purpose of
massacring the white people. Face to face with this charge Econchattimico
gave up his arms and threw himself on the protection of the government;
and his Negroes were at once taken and sold into bondage.
A similar case was that of John Walker, an Appalachicola chief, who
wrote to Thompson under date July 28, 1835: "I am induced to write you in
consequence of the depredations making and attempted to be made upon
my property, by a company of Negro stealers, some of whom are from
Columbus, Ga., and have connected themselves with Brown and
Douglass.... I should like your advice how I am to act. I dislike to make or
to have any difficulty with the white people. But if they trespass upon my
premises and my rights, I must defend myself the best way I can. If they do
make this attempt, and I have no doubt they will, they must bear the
consequences. But is there no civil law to protect me? Are the free Negroes
and the Negroes belonging to this town to be stolen away publicly, and in
the face of law and justice, carried off and sold to fill the pockets of these
worse than land pirates? Douglass and his company hired a man who has
two large trained dogs for the purpose to come down and take Billy. He is
from Mobile and follows for a livelihood catching runaway Negroes."
Such were the motives, fears and incidents in the years immediately after
the treaty of Payne's Landing. Beginning at the close of 1834 and
continuing through April, 1835, Thompson had a series of conferences with
the Seminole chiefs. At these meetings Micanopy, influenced by Osceola
and other young Seminoles, took a more definite stand than he might
otherwise have assumed. Especially did he insist with reference to the treaty
that he understood that the chiefs who went West were to examine the
country, and for his part he knew that when they returned they would report
unfavorably. Thompson then, becoming angry, delivered an ultimatum to
the effect that if the treaty was not observed the annuity from the great
father in Washington would cease. To this, Osceola, stepping forward,
replied that he and his warriors did not care if they never received another
dollar from the great father, and drawing his knife, he plunged it in the table
and said, "The only treaty I will execute is with this." Henceforward there
was deadly enmity between the young Seminole and Thompson. More and

more Osceola made his personality felt, constantly asserting to the men of
his nation that whoever recommended emigration was an enemy of the
Seminoles, and he finally arrived at an understanding with many of them
that the treaty would be resisted with their very lives. Thompson, however,
on April 23, 1835, had a sort of secret conference with sixteen of the chiefs
who seemed favorably disposed toward migration, and he persuaded them
to sign a document "freely and fully" assenting to the treaties of Payne's
Landing and Fort Gibson. The next day there was a formal meeting at
which the agent, backed up by Clinch and his soldiers, upbraided the
Indians in a very harsh manner. His words were met by groans, angry
gesticulations, and only half-muffled imprecations. Clinch endeavored to
appeal to the Indians and to advise them that resistance was both unwise
and useless. Thompson, however, with his usual lack of tact, rushed onward
in his course, and learning that five chiefs were unalterably opposed to the
treaty, he arbitrarily struck their names off the roll of chiefs, an action the
highhandedness of which was not lost on the Seminoles. Immediately after
the conference moreover he forbade the sale of any more arms and powder
to the Indians. To the friendly chiefs the understanding had been given that
the nation might have until January 1, 1836, to make preparation for
removal, by which time all were to assemble at Fort Brooke, Tampa Bay,
for emigration.
About the first of June Osceola was one day on a quiet errand of trading
at Fort King. With him was his wife, the daughter of a mulatto slave woman
who had run away years before and married an Indian chief. By Southern
law this woman followed the condition of her mother, and when the
mother's former owner appeared on the scene and claimed the daughter,
Thompson, who desired to teach Occeola a lesson, readily agreed that she
should be remanded into captivity.83 Osceola was highly enraged, and this
time it was his turn to upbraid the agent. Thompson now had him
overpowered and put in irons, in which situation he remained for the better
part of two days. In this period of captivity his soul plotted revenge and at
length he too planned a "ruse de guerre." Feigning assent to the treaty he
told Thompson that if he was released not only would he sign himself but
he would also bring his people to sign. The agent was completely deceived
by Osceola's tactics. "True to his professions," wrote Thompson on June 3,
"he this day appeared with seventy-nine of his people, men, women, and
children, including some who had joined him since his conversion, and

redeemed his promise. He told me many of his friends were out hunting,
whom he could and would bring over on their return. I have now no doubt
of his sincerity, and as little, that the greatest difficulty is surmounted."
Osceola now rapidly urged forward preparations for war, which,
however, he did not wish actually started until after the crops were
gathered. By the fall he was ready, and one day in October when he and
some other warriors met Charley Emathla, who had upon him the gold and
silver that he had received from the sale of his cattle preparatory to
migration, they killed this chief, and Osceola threw the money in every
direction, saying that no one was to touch it, as it was the price of the red
man's blood. The true drift of events became even more apparent to
Thompson and Clinch in November, when five chiefs friendly to migration
with five hundred of their people suddenly appeared at Fort Brooke to ask
for protection. When in December Thompson sent final word to the
Seminoles that they must bring in their horses and cattle, the Indians did not
come on the appointed day; on the contrary they sent their women and
children to the interior and girded themselves for battle. To Osceola late in
the month a runner brought word that some troops under the command of
Major Dade were to leave Fort Brooke on the 25th and on the night of the
27th were to be attacked by some Seminoles in the Wahoo Swamp. Osceola
himself, with some of his men, was meanwhile lying in the woods near Fort
King, waiting for an opportunity to kill Thompson. On the afternoon of the
28th the agent dined not far from the fort at the home of the sutler, a man
named Rogers, and after dinner he walked with Lieutenant Smith to the
crest of a neighboring hill. Here he was surprised by the Indians, and both
he and Smith fell pierced by numerous bullets. The Indians then pressed on
to the home of the sutler and killed Rogers, his two clerks, and a little boy.
On the same day the command of Major Dade, including seven officers and
one hundred and ten men, was almost completely annihilated, only three
men escaping. Dade and his horse were killed at the first onset. These two
attacks began the actual fighting of the Second Seminole War. That the
Negroes were working shoulder to shoulder with the Indians in these
encounters may be seen from the report of Captain Belton,84 who said,
"Lieut. Keays, third artillery, had both arms broken from the first shot; was
unable to act, and was tomahawked the latter part of the second attack, by a
Negro"; and further: "A Negro named Harry controls the Pea Band of about
a hundred warriors, forty miles southeast of us, who have done most of the

mischief, and keep this post constantly observed." Osceola now joined
forces with those Indians who had attacked Dade, and in the early morning
of the last day of the year occurred the Battle of Ouithlecoochee, a
desperate encounter in which both Osceola and Clinch gave good accounts
of themselves. Clinch had two hundred regulars and five or six hundred
volunteers. The latter fled early in the contest and looked on from a
distance; and Clinch had to work desperately to keep from duplicating the
experience of Dade. Osceola himself was conspicuous in a red belt and
three long feathers, but although twice wounded he seemed to bear a
charmed life. He posted himself behind a tree, from which station he
constantly sallied forth to kill or wound an enemy with almost infallible
aim.
After these early encounters the fighting became more and more bitter
and the contest more prolonged. Early in the war the disbursing agent
reported that there were only three thousand Indians, including Negroes, to
be considered; but this was clearly an understatement. Within the next year
and a half the Indians were hard pressed, and before the end of this period
the notorious Thomas S. Jessup had appeared on the scene as commanding
major general. This man seems to have determined never to use honorable
means of warfare if some ignoble instrument could serve his purpose. In a
letter sent to Colonel Harvey from Tampa Bay under date May 25, 1837, he
said: "If you see Powell (Osceola), tell him I shall send out and take all the
Negroes who belong to the white people. And he must not allow the Indian
Negroes to mix with them. Tell him I am sending to Cuba for bloodhounds
to trail them; and I intend to hang every one of them who does not come
in." And it might be remarked that for his bloodhounds Jessup spent—or
said he spent—as much as $5,000, a fact which thoroughly aroused
Giddings and other persons from the North, who by no means cared to see
such an investment of public funds. By order No. 160, dated August 3,
1837, Jessup invited his soldiers to plunder and rapine, saying, "All Indian
property captured from this date will belong to the corps or detachment
making it." From St. Augustine, under date October 20, 1837, in a
"confidential" communication he said to one of his lieutenants: "Should
Powell and his warriors come within the fort, seize him and the whole party.
It is important that he, Wild Cat, John Cowagee, and Tustenuggee, be
secured. Hold them until you have my orders in relation to them."85 Two
days later he was able to write to the Secretary of War that Osceola was

actually taken. Said he: "That chief came into the vicinity of Fort Peyton on
the 20th, and sent a messenger to General Hernandez, desiring to see and
converse with him. The sickly season being over, and there being no further
necessity to temporize, I sent a party of mounted men, and seized the entire
body, and now have them securely lodged in the fort." Osceola, Wild Cat,
and others thus captured were marched to St. Augustine; but Wild Cat
escaped. Osceola was ultimately taken to Fort Moultrie, in the harbor of
Charleston, where in January (1838) he died.
Important in this general connection was the fate of the deputation that
the influential John Ross, chief of the Cherokees, was persuaded to send
from his nation to induce the Seminoles to think more favorably of
migration. Micanopy, twelve other chieftains, and a number of warriors
accompanied the Cherokee deputation to the headquarters of the United
States Army at Fort Mellon, where they were to discuss the matter. These
warriors also Jessup seized, and Ross wrote to the Secretary of War a
dignified but bitter letter protesting against this "unprecedented violation of
that sacred rule which has ever been recognized by every nation, civilized
and uncivilized, of treating with all due respect those who had ever
presented themselves under a flag of truce before the enemy, for the
purpose of proposing the termination of warfare." He had indeed been most
basely used as the agent of deception.
This chapter, we trust, has shown something of the real nature of the
points at issue in the Seminole Wars. In the course of these contests the
rights of Indian and Negro alike were ruthlessly disregarded. There was
redress for neither before the courts, and at the end in dealing with them
every honorable principle of men and nations was violated. It is interesting
that the three representatives of colored peoples who in the course of the
nineteenth century it was most difficult to capture—Toussaint L'Ouverture,
the Negro, Osceola, the Indian, and Aguinaldo, the Filipino—were all taken
through treachery; and on two of the three occasions this treachery was
practiced by responsible officers of the United States Army.
Footnote 76: (return)
In his official capacity Jackson issued two addresses which have an important
place in the history of the Negro soldier. From his headquarters at Mobile,
September 21, 1814, he issued an appeal "To the Free Colored Inhabitants of
Louisiana," offering them an honorable part in the war, and this was later
followed by a "Proclamation to the Free People of Color" congratulating them on
their achievement. Both addresses are accessible in many books.

Footnote 77: (return)
McMaster, IV, 431.

Footnote 78: (return)
See J.R. Giddings: The Exiles of Florida, 63-66; also speech in House of
Representatives February 9, 1841.

Footnote 79: (return)
Sprague, 19.

Footnote 80: (return)
The correspondence is readily accessible in Sprague, 30-37.

Footnote 81: (return)
Hodge's Handbook of American Indians, II, 159.

Footnote 82: (return)
Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio. His exhaustive speech on the Florida War was
made February 9, 1841.

Footnote 83: (return)
This highly important incident, which was really the spark that started the war, is
absolutely ignored even by such well informed writers as Drake and Sprague.
Drake simply gives the impression that the quarrel between Osceola and
Thompson was over the old matter of emigration, saying (413), "Remonstrance
soon grew into altercation, which ended in a ruse de guerre, by which Osceola
was made prisoner by the agent, and put in irons, in which situation he was kept
one night and part of two days." The story is told by McMaster, however. Also
note M.M. Cohen as quoted in Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, Vol. II, p. 419
(July, 1837).

Footnote 84: (return)
Accessible in Drake, 416-418.

Footnote 85: (return)
This correspondence, and much more bearing on the point, may be found in
House Document 327 of the Second Session of the Twenty-fifth Congress.

CHAPTER VI
EARLY APPROACH TO THE NEGRO PROBLEM

1. The Ultimate Problem and the Missouri Compromise

In a previous chapter86 we have already indicated the rise of the Negro
Problem in the last decade of the eighteenth and the first two decades of the
nineteenth century. And what was the Negro Problem? It was certainly not
merely a question of slavery; in the last analysis this institution was hardly
more than an incident. Slavery has ceased to exist, but even to-day the
Problem is with us. The question was rather what was to be the final place
in the American body politic of the Negro population that was so rapidly
increasing in the country. In the answering of this question supreme
importance attached to the Negro himself; but the problem soon
transcended the race. Ultimately it was the destiny of the United States
rather than of the Negro that was to be considered, and all the ideals on
which the country was based came to the testing. If one studied those ideals
he soon realized that they were based on Teutonic or at least English
foundations. By 1820, however, the young American republic was already
beginning to be the hope of all of the oppressed people of Europe, and
Greeks and Italians as well as Germans and Swedes were turning their faces
toward the Promised Land. The whole background of Latin culture was
different from the Teutonic, and yet the people of Southern as well as of
Northern Europe somehow became a part of the life of the United States. In
this life was it also possible for the children of Africa to have a permanent
and an honorable place? With their special tradition and gifts, with their
shortcomings, above all with their distinctive color, could they, too, become
genuine American citizens? Some said No, but in taking this position they
denied not only the ideals on which the country was founded but also the
possibilities of human nature itself. In any case the answer to the first

question at once suggested another, What shall we do with the Negro?
About this there was very great difference of opinion, it not always being
supposed that the Negro himself had anything whatever to say about the
matter. Some said send the Negro away, get rid of him by any means
whatsoever; others said if he must stay, keep him in slavery; still others said
not to keep him permanently in slavery, but emancipate him only gradually;
and already there were beginning to be persons who felt that the Negro
should be emancipated everywhere immediately, and that after this great
event had taken place he and the nation together should work out his
salvation on the broadest possible plane.
Into the agitation was suddenly thrust the application of Missouri for
entrance into the Union as a slave state. The struggle that followed for two
years was primarily a political one, but in the course of the discussion the
evils of slavery were fully considered. Meanwhile, in 1819, Alabama and
Maine also applied for admission. Alabama was allowed to enter without
much discussion, as she made equal the number of slave and free states.
Maine, however, brought forth more talk. The Southern congressmen would
have been perfectly willing to admit this as a free state if Missouri had been
admitted as a slave state; but the North felt that this would have been to
concede altogether too much, as Missouri from the first gave promise of
being unusually important. At length, largely through the influence of
Henry Clay, there was adopted a compromise whose main provisions were
(1) that Maine was to be admitted as a free state; (2) that in Missouri there
was to be no prohibition of slavery; but (3) that slavery was to be prohibited
in any other states that might be formed out of the Louisiana Purchase north
of the line of 36° 30'.
By this agreement the strife was allayed for some years; but it is now
evident that the Missouri Compromise was only a postponement of the
ultimate contest and that the social questions involved were hardly touched.
Certainly the significance of the first clear drawing of the line between the
sections was not lost upon thoughtful men. Jefferson wrote from Monticello
in 1820: "This momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened
and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It
is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final
sentence.... I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth
who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy
reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property, for

so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle that would not cost me a second thought, if,
in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and,
gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be."87 For the time being,
however, the South was concerned mainly about immediate dangers; nor
was this section placed more at ease by Denmark Vesey's attempted
insurrection in 1822.88 A representative South Carolinian,89 writing after
this event, said, "We regard our Negroes as the Jacobins of the country,
against whom we should always be upon our guard, and who, although we
fear no permanent effects from any insurrectionary movements on their
part, should be watched with an eye of steady and unremitted observation."
Meanwhile from a ratio of 43.72 to 56.28 in 1790 the total Negro
population in South Carolina had by 1820 come to outnumber the white
52.77 to 47.23, and the tendency was increasingly in favor of the Negro.
The South, the whole country in fact, was more and more being forced to
consider not only slavery but the ultimate reaches of the problem.
Whatever one might think of the conclusion—and in this case the speaker
was pleading for colonization—no statement of the problem as it impressed
men about 1820 or 1830 was clearer than that of Rev. Dr. Nott, President of
Union College, at Albany in 1829.90 The question, said he, was by no
means local. Slavery was once legalized in New England; and New
England built slave-ships and manned these with New England seamen. In
1820 the slave population in the country amounted to 1,500,000. The
number doubled every twenty years, and it was easy to see how it would
progress from 1,500,000 to 3,000,000; to 6,000,000; to 12,000,000; to
24,000,000. "Twenty-four millions of slaves! What a drawback from our
strength; what a tax on our resources; what a hindrance to our growth; what
a stain on our character; and what an impediment to the fulfillment of our
destiny! Could our worst enemies or the worst enemies of republics, wish
us a severer judgment?" How could one know that wakeful and sagacious
enemies without would not discover the vulnerable point and use it for the
country's overthrow? Or was there not danger that among a people goaded
from age to age there might at length arise some second Toussaint
L'Ouverture, who, reckless of consequences, would array a force and cause
a movement throughout the zone of bondage, leaving behind him
plantations waste and mansions desolate? Who could believe that such a
tremendous physical force would remain forever spell-bound and
quiescent? After all, however, slavery was doomed; public opinion had

already pronounced upon it, and the moral energy of the nation would
sooner or later effect its overthrow. "But," continued Nott, "the solemn
question here arises—in what condition will this momentous change place
us? The freed men of other countries have long since disappeared, having
been amalgamated in the general mass. Here there can be no amalgamation.
Our manumitted bondmen have remained already to the third and fourth, as
they will to the thousandth generation—a distinct, a degraded, and a
wretched race." After this sweeping statement, which has certainly not been
justified by time, Nott proceeded to argue the expediency of his
organization. Gerrit Smith, who later drifted away from colonization, said
frankly on the same occasion that the ultimate solution was either
amalgamation or colonization, and that of the two courses he preferred to
choose the latter. Others felt as he did. We shall now accordingly proceed to
consider at somewhat greater length the two solutions that about 1820 had
the clearest advocates—Colonization and Slavery.

2. Colonization

Early in 1773, Rev. Samuel Hopkins, of Newport, called on his friend,
Rev. Ezra Stiles, afterwards President of Yale College, and suggested the
possibility of educating Negro students, perhaps two at first, who would
later go as missionaries to Africa. Stiles thought that for the plan to be
worth while there should be a colony on the coast of Africa, that at least
thirty or forty persons should go, and that the enterprise should not be
private but should have the formal backing of a society organized for the
purpose. In harmony with the original plan two young Negro men sailed
from New York for Africa, November 12, 1774; but the Revolutionary War
followed and nothing more was done at the time. In 1784, however, and
again in 1787, Hopkins tried to induce different merchants to fit out a vessel
to convey a few emigrants, and in the latter year he talked with a young
man from the West Indies, Dr. William Thornton, who expressed a
willingness to take charge of the company. The enterprise failed for lack of
funds, though Thornton kept up his interest and afterwards became a
member of the first Board of Managers of the American Colonization
Society. Hopkins in 1791 spoke before the Connecticut Emancipation
Society, which he wished to see incorporated as a colonization society, and
in a sermon before the Providence society in 1793 he reverted to his

favorite theme. Meanwhile, as a result of the efforts of Wilberforce,
Clarkson, and Granville Sharp in England, in May, 1787, some four
hundred Negroes and sixty white persons were landed at Sierra Leone.
Some of the Negroes in England had gained their freedom in consequence
of Lord Mansfield's decision in 1772, others had been discharged from the
British Army after the American Revolution, and all were leading in
England a more or less precarious existence. The sixty white persons sent
along were abandoned women, and why Sierra Leone should have had this
weight placed upon it at the start history has not yet told. It is not surprising
to learn that "disease and disorder were rife, and by 1791 a mere handful
survived."91 As early as in his Notes on Virginia, privately printed in 1781,
Thomas Jefferson had suggested a colony for Negroes, perhaps in the new
territory of Ohio. The suggestion was not acted upon, but it is evident that
by 1800 several persons had thought of the possibility of removing the
Negroes in the South to some other place either within or without the
country.
Gabriel's insurrection in 1800 again forced the idea concretely forward.
Virginia was visibly disturbed by this outbreak, and in secret session, on
December 21, the House of Delegates passed the following resolution:
"That the Governor92 be requested to correspond with the President of the
United States,93 on the subject of purchasing land without the limits of this
state, whither persons obnoxious to the laws, or dangerous to the peace of
society may be removed." The real purpose of this resolution was to get rid
of those Negroes who had had some part in the insurrection and had not
been executed; but not in 1800, or in 1802 or 1804, was the General
Assembly thus able to banish those whom it was afraid to hang. Monroe,
however, acted in accordance with his instructions, and Jefferson replied to
him under date November 24, 1801. He was not now favorable to
deportation to some place within the United States, and thought that the
West Indies, probably Santo Domingo, might be better. There was little real
danger that the exiles would stimulate vindictive or predatory descents on
the American coasts, and in any case such a possibility was "overweighed
by the humanity of the measures proposed." "Africa would offer a last and
undoubted resort," thought Jefferson, "if all others more desirable should
fail."94 Six months later, on July 13, 1802, the President wrote about the
matter to Rufus King, then minister in London. The course of events in the

West Indies, he said, had given an impulse to the minds of Negroes in the
United States; there was a disposition to insurgency, and it now seemed that
if there was to be colonization, Africa was by all means the best place. An
African company might also engage in commercial operations, and if there
was coöperation with Sierra Leone, there was the possibility of "one strong,
rather than two weak colonies." Would King accordingly enter into
conference with the English officials with reference to disposing of any
Negroes who might be sent? "It is material to observe," remarked Jefferson,
"that they are not felons, or common malefactors, but persons guilty of what
the safety of society, under actual circumstances, obliges us to treat as a
crime, but which their feelings may represent in a far different shape. They
are such as will be a valuable acquisition to the settlement already existing
there, and well calculated to coöperate in the plan of civilization."95 King
accordingly opened correspondence with Thornton and Wedderbourne, the
secretaries of the company having charge of Sierra Leone, but was informed
that the colony was in a languishing condition and that funds were likely to
fail, and that in no event would they be willing to receive more people from
the United States, as these were the very ones who had already made most
trouble in the settlement.96 On January 22, 1805, the General Assembly of
Virginia passed a resolution that embodied a request to the United States
Government to set aside a portion of territory in the new Louisiana
Purchase "to be appropriated to the residence of such people of color as
have been, or shall be, emancipated, or may hereafter become dangerous to
the public safety." Nothing came of this. By the close then of Jefferson's
second administration the Northwest, the Southwest, the West Indies, and
Sierra Leone had all been thought of as possible fields for colonization, but
from the consideration nothing visible had resulted.
Now followed the period of Southern expansion and of increasing
materialism, and before long came the War of 1812. By 1811 a note of
doubt had crept into Jefferson's dealing with the subject. Said he: "Nothing
is more to be wished than that the United States would themselves
undertake to make such an establishment on the coast of Africa ... But for
this the national mind is not yet prepared. It may perhaps be doubted
whether many of these people would voluntarily consent to such an
exchange of situation, and very certain that few of those advanced to a
certain age in habits of slavery, would be capable of self-government. This
should not, however, discourage the experiment, nor the early trial of it; and

the proposition should be made with all the prudent cautions and attentions
requisite to reconcile it to the interests, the safety, and the prejudices of all
parties."97
From an entirely different source, however, and prompted not by
expediency but the purest altruism, came an impulse that finally told in the
founding of Liberia. The heart of a young man reached out across the sea.
Samuel J. Mills, an undergraduate of Williams College, in 1808 formed
among his fellow-students a missionary society whose work later told in the
formation of the American Bible Society and the Board of Foreign
Missions. Mills continued his theological studies at Andover and then at
Princeton; and while at the latter place he established a school for Negroes
at Parsippany, thirty miles away. He also interested in his work and hopes
Rev. Robert Finley, of Basking Ridge, N.J., who "succeeded in assembling
at Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the project of sending
Negro colonists to Africa,"98 and who in a letter to John P. Mumford, of
New York, under date February 14, 1815, expressed his interest by saying,
"We should send to Africa a population partly civilized and christianized for
its benefit; and our blacks themselves would be put in a better condition."
In this same year, 1815, the country was startled by the unselfish
enterprise of a Negro who had long thought of the unfortunate situation of
his people in America and who himself shouldered the obligation to do
something definite in their behalf. Paul Cuffe had been born in May, 1759,
on one of the Elizabeth Islands near New Bedford, Mass., the son of a
father who was once a slave from Africa and of an Indian mother.99
Interested in navigation, he made voyages to Russia, England, Africa, the
West Indies, and the South; and in time he commanded his own vessel,
became generally respected, and by his wisdom rose to a fair degree of
opulence. For twenty years he had thought especially about Africa, and in
1815 he took to Sierra Leone a total of nine families and thirty-eight
persons at an expense to himself of nearly $4000. The people that he
brought were well received at Sierra Leone, and Cuffe himself had greater
and more far-reaching plans when he died September 7, 1817. He left an
estate valued at $20,000.
Dr. Finley's meeting at Princeton was not very well attended and hence
not a great success. Nevertheless he felt sufficiently encouraged to go to
Washington in December, 1816, to use his effort for the formation of a

national colonization society. It happened that in February of this same year,
1816, General Charles Fenton Mercer, member of the House of Delegates,
came upon the secret journals of the legislature for the period 1801-5 and
saw the correspondence between Monroe and Jefferson. Interested in the
colonization project, on December 14 (Monroe then being President-elect)
he presented in the House of Delegates resolutions embodying the previous
enactments; and these passed 132 to 14. Finley was generally helped by the
effort of Mercer, and on December 21, 1816, there was held in Washington
a meeting of public men and interested citizens, Henry Clay, then Speaker
of the House of Representatives, presiding. A constitution was adopted at an
adjourned meeting on December 28; and on January 1, 1817, were formally
chosen the officers of "The American Society for Colonizing the Free
People of Color of the United States." At this last meeting Henry Clay,
again presiding, spoke in glowing terms of the possibilities of the
movement; Elias B. Caldwell, a brother-in-law of Finley, made the leading
argument; and John Randolph, of Roanoke, Va., and Robert Wright, of
Maryland, spoke of the advantages to accrue from the removal of the free
Negroes from the country (which remarks were very soon to awaken much
discussion and criticism, especially on the part of the Negroes themselves).
It is interesting to note that Mercer had no part at all in the meeting of
January 1, not even being present; he did not feel that any but Southern men
should be enrolled in the organization. However, Bushrod Washington, the
president, was a Southern man; twelve of the seventeen vice-presidents
were Southern men, among them being Andrew Jackson and William
Crawford; and all of the twelve managers were slaveholders.
Membership in the American Colonization Society originally consisted,
first, of such as sincerely desired to afford the free Negroes an asylum from
oppression and who hoped through them to extend to Africa the blessings of
civilization and Christianity; second, of such as sought to enhance the value
of their own slaves by removing the free Negroes; and third, of such as
desired to be relieved of any responsibility whatever for free Negroes. The
movement was widely advertised as "an effort for the benefit of the blacks
in which all parts of the country could unite," it being understood that it was
"not to have the abolition of slavery for its immediate object," nor was it to
"aim directly at the instruction of the great body of the blacks." Such points
as the last were to prove in course of time hardly less than a direct challenge
to the different abolitionist organizations in the North, and more and more

the Society was denounced as a movement on the part of slaveholders for
perpetuating their institutions by doing away with the free people of color.
It is not to be supposed, however, that the South, with its usual religious
fervor, did not put much genuine feeling into the colonization scheme. One
man in Georgia named Tubman freed his slaves, thirty in all, and placed
them in charge of the Society with a gift of $10,000; Thomas Hunt, a young
Virginian, afterwards a chaplain in the Union Army, sent to Liberia the
slaves he had inherited, paying the entire cost of the journey; and others
acted in a similar spirit of benevolence. It was but natural, however, for the
public to be somewhat uncertain as to the tendencies of the organization
when the utterances of representative men were sometimes directly
contradictory. On January 20, 1827, for instance, Henry Clay, then
Secretary of State, speaking in the hall of the House of Representatives at
the annual meeting of the Society, said: "Of all classes of our population,
the most vicious is that of the free colored. It is the inevitable result of their
moral, political, and civil degradation. Contaminated themselves, they
extend their vices to all around them, to the slaves and to the whites." Just a
moment later he said: "Every emigrant to Africa is a missionary carrying
with him credentials in the holy cause of civilization, religion, and free
institutions." How persons contaminated and vicious could be missionaries
of civilization and religion was something possible only in the logic of
Henry Clay. In the course of the next month Robert Y. Hayne gave a
Southern criticism in two addresses on a memorial presented in the United
States Senate by the Colonization Society.100 The first of these speeches
was a clever one characterized by much wit and good-humored raillery; the
second was a sober arraignment. Hayne emphasized the tremendous cost
involved and the physical impossibility of the whole undertaking,
estimating that at least sixty thousand persons a year would have to be
transported to accomplish anything like the desired result. At the close of
his brilliant attack, still making a veiled plea for the continuance of slavery,
he nevertheless rose to genuine statesmanship in dealing with the problem
of the Negro, saying, "While this process is going on the colored classes are
gradually diffusing themselves throughout the country and are making
steady advances in intelligence and refinement, and if half the zeal were
displayed in bettering their condition that is now wasted in the vain and
fruitless effort of sending them abroad, their intellectual and moral
improvement would be steady and rapid." William Lloyd Garrison was

untiring and merciless in flaying the inconsistencies and selfishness of the
colonization organization. In an editorial in the Liberator, July 9, 1831, he
charged the Society, first, with persecution in compelling free people to
emigrate against their will and in discouraging their education at home;
second, with falsehood in saying that the Negroes were natives of Africa
when they were no more so than white Americans were natives of Great
Britain; third, with cowardice in asserting that the continuance of the Negro
population in the country involved dangers; and finally, with infidelity in
denying that the Gospel has full power to reach the hatred in the hearts of
men. In Thoughts on African Colonisation (1832) he developed
exhaustively ten points as follows: That the American Colonization Society
was pledged not to oppose the system of slavery, that it apologized for
slavery and slaveholders, that it recognized slaves as property, that by
deporting Negroes it increased the value of slaves, that it was the enemy of
immediate abolition, that it was nourished by fear and selfishness, that it
aimed at the utter expulsion of the blacks, that it was the disparager of free
Negroes, that it denied the possibility of elevating the black people of the
country, and that it deceived and misled the nation. Other criticisms were
numerous. A broadside, "The Shields of American Slavery" ("Broad enough
to hide the wrongs of two millions of stolen men") placed side by side
conflicting utterances of members of the Society; and in August, 1830,
Kendall, fourth auditor, in his report to the Secretary of the Navy, wondered
why the resources of the government should be used "to colonize
recaptured Africans, to build homes for them, to furnish them with farming
utensils, to pay instructors to teach them, to purchase ships for their
convenience, to build forts for their protection, to supply them with arms
and munitions of war, to enlist troops to guard them, and to employ the
army and navy in their defense."101 Criticism of the American Colonization
Society was prompted by a variety of motives; but the organization made
itself vulnerable at many points. The movement attracted extraordinary
attention, but has had practically no effect whatever on the position of the
Negro in the United States. Its work in connection with the founding of
Liberia, however, is of the highest importance, and must later receive
detailed attention.

3. Slavery

We have seen that from the beginning there were liberal-minded men in
the South who opposed the system of slavery, and if we actually take note
of all the utterances of different men and of the proposals for doing away
with the system, we shall find that about the turn of the century there was in
this section considerable anti-slavery sentiment. Between 1800 and 1820,
however, the opening of new lands in the Southwest, the increasing
emphasis on cotton, and the rapidly growing Negro population, gave force
to the argument of expediency; and the Missouri Compromise drew sharply
the lines of the contest. The South now came to regard slavery as its
peculiar heritage; public men were forced to defend the institution; and in
general the best thought of the section began to be obsessed and dominated
by the Negro, just as it is to-day in large measure. In taking this position the
South deliberately committed intellectual suicide. In such matters as
freedom of speech and literary achievement, and in genuine statesmanship
if not for the time being in political influence, this part of the country
declined, and before long the difference between it and New England was
appalling. Calhoun and Hayne were strong; but between 1820 and 1860 the
South had no names to compare with Longfellow and Emerson in literature,
or with Morse and Hoe in invention. The foremost college professor, Dew,
of William and Mary, and even the outstanding divines, Furman, the
Baptist, of South Carolina, in the twenties, and Palmer, the Presbyterian of
New Orleans, in the fifties, are all now remembered mainly because they
defended their section in keeping the Negro in bonds. William and Mary
College, and even the University of Virginia, as compared with Harvard and
Yale, became provincial institutions; and instead of the Washington or
Jefferson of an earlier day now began to be nourished such a leader as
"Bob" Toombs, who for all of his fire and eloquence was a demagogue. In
making its choice the South could not and did not blame the Negro per se,
for it was freely recognized that upon slave labor rested such economic
stability as the section possessed. The tragedy was simply that thousands of
intelligent Americans deliberately turned their faces to the past, and
preferred to read the novels of Walter Scott and live in the Middle Ages
rather than study the French Revolution and live in the nineteenth century.
One hundred years after we find that the chains are still forged, that thought
is not yet free. Thus the Negro Problem began to be, and still is, very
largely the problem of the white man of the South. The era of capitalism
had not yet dawned, and still far in the future was the day when the poor

white man and the Negro were slowly to realize that their interests were
largely identical.
The argument with which the South came to support its position and to
defend slavery need not here detain us at length. It was formally stated by
Dew and others102 and it was to be heard on every hand. One could hardly
go to church, to say nothing of going to a public meeting, without hearing
echoes of it. In general it was maintained that slavery had made for the
civilization of the world in that it had mitigated the evils of war, had made
labor profitable, had changed the nature of savages, and elevated woman.
The slave-trade was of course horrible and unjust, but the great advantages
of the system more than outweighed a few attendant evils. Emancipation
and deportation were alike impossible. Even if practicable, they would not
be expedient measures, for they meant the loss to Virginia of one-third of
her property. As for morality, it was not to be expected that the Negro
should have the sensibilities of the white man. Moreover the system had the
advantage of cultivating a republican spirit among the white people. In
short, said Dew, the slaves, in both the economic and the moral point of
view, were "entirely unfit for a state of freedom among the whites."
Holland, already cited, in 1822 maintained five points, as follows: 1. That
the United States are one for national purposes, but separate for their
internal regulation and government; 2. That the people of the North and
East "always exhibited an unfriendly feeling on subjects affecting the
interests of the South and West"; 3. That the institution of slavery was not
an institution of the South's voluntary choosing; 4. That the Southern
sections of the Union, both before and after the Declaration of
Independence, "had uniformly exhibited a disposition to restrict the
extension of the evil—and had always manifested as cordial a disposition to
ameliorate it as those of the North and East"; and 5. That the actual state
and condition of the slave population "reflected no disgrace whatever on the
character of the country—as the slaves were infinitely better provided for
than the laboring poor of other countries of the world, and were generally
happier than millions of white people in the world." Such arguments the
clergy supported and endeavored to reconcile with Christian precept. Rev.
Dr. Richard Furman, president of the Baptist Convention of South
Carolina,103 after much inquiry and reasoning, arrived at the conclusion that
"the holding of slaves is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained
in Holy Writ; and is, therefore, consistent with Christian uprightness both in

sentiment and conduct." Said he further: "The Christian golden rule, of
doing to others as we would they should do to us, has been urged as an
unanswerable argument against holding slaves. But surely this rule is never
to be urged against that order of things which the Divine government has
established; nor do our desires become a standard to us, under this rule,
unless they have a due regard to justice, propriety, and the general good....
A father may very naturally desire that his son should be obedient to his
orders: Is he therefore to obey the orders of his son? A man might be
pleased to be exonerated from his debts by the generosity of his creditors;
or that his rich neighbor should equally divide his property with him; and in
certain circumstances might desire these to be done: Would the mere
existence of this desire oblige him to exonerate his debtors, and to make
such division of his property?" Calhoun in 1837 formally accepted slavery,
saying that the South should no longer apologize for it; and the whole
argument from the standpoint of expediency received eloquent expression
in the Senate of the United States from no less a man than Henry Clay, who
more and more appears in the perspective as a pro-Southern advocate. Said
he: "I am no friend of slavery. But I prefer the liberty of my own country to
that of any other people; and the liberty of my own race to that of any other
race. The liberty of the descendants of Africa in the United States is
incompatible with the safety and liberty of the European descendants. Their
slavery forms an exception—an exception resulting from a stern and
inexorable necessity—to the general liberty in the United States."104 After
the lapse of years the pro-slavery argument is pitiful in its numerous
fallacies. It was in line with much of the discussion of the day that
questioned whether the Negro was actually a human being, and but serves
to show to what extremes economic interest will sometimes drive men
otherwise of high intelligence and honor.
Footnote 86: (return)
IV, Section 3.

Footnote 87: (return)
Writings, XV, 249.

Footnote 88: (return)
See Chapter VII, Section 1.

Footnote 89: (return)
Holland: A Refutation of Calumnies, 61.

Footnote 90: (return)
See "African Colonization. Proceedings of the Formation of the New York State
Colonization Society." Albany, 1829.

Footnote 91: (return)
McPherson, 15. (See bibliography on Liberia.)

Footnote 92: (return)
Monroe.

Footnote 93: (return)
Jefferson.

Footnote 94: (return)
Writings, X, 297.

Footnote 95: (return)
Writings, X, 327-328.

Footnote 96: (return)
Ibid., XIII, 11.

Footnote 97: (return)
Writings, XIII, 11.

Footnote 98: (return)
McPherson, 18.

Footnote 99: (return)
First Annual Report of American Colonization Society.

Footnote 100: (return)
See Jervey: Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, 207-8.

Footnote 101: (return)
Cited by McPherson, 22.

Footnote 102: (return)
The Pro-Slavery Argument (as maintained by the most distinguished writers of
the Southern states). Charleston, 1852.

Footnote 103: (return)
"Rev. Dr. Richard Furman's Exposition of the Views of the Baptists relative to
the Coloured Population in the United States, in a Communication to the
Governor of South Carolina." Second edition, Charleston, 1833 (letter bears
original date, December 24, 1822).

Footnote 104: (return)
Address "On Abolition," February 7, 1839.

CHAPTER VII
THE NEGRO REPLY, I: REVOLT

We have already seen that on several occasions in colonial times the
Negroes in bondage made a bid for freedom, many men risking their all and
losing their lives in consequence. In general these early attempts failed
completely to realize their aim, organization being feeble and the leadership
untrained and exerting only an emotional hold over adherents. In
Charleston, S.C., in 1822, however, there was planned an insurrection about
whose scope there could be no question. The leader, Denmark Vesey, is
interesting as an intellectual insurrectionist just as the more famous Nat
Turner is typical of the more fervent sort. It is the purpose of the present
chapter to study the attempts for freedom made by these two men, and also
those of two daring groups of captives who revolted at sea.

1. Denmark Vesey's Insurrection

Denmark Vesey is first seen as one of the three hundred and ninety slaves
on the ship of Captain Vesey, who commanded a vessel trading between St.
Thomas and Cape François (Santo Domingo), and who was engaged in
supplying the French of the latter place with slaves. At the time, the boy
was fourteen years old, and of unusual personal beauty, alertness, and
magnetism. He was shown considerable favoritism, and was called
Télémaque (afterwards corrupted to Telmak, and then to Denmark). On his
arrival at Cape François, Denmark was sold with others of the slaves to a
planter who owned a considerable estate. On his next trip, however, Captain
Vesey learned that the boy was to be returned to him as unsound and subject
to epileptic fits. The laws of the place permitted the return of a slave in such
a case, and while it has been thought that Denmark's fits may have been
feigned in order that he might have some change of estate, there was quite

enough proof in the matter to impress the king's physician. Captain Vesey
never had reason to regret having to take the boy back. They made several
voyages together, and Denmark served until 1800 as his faithful personal
attendant. In this year the young man, now thirty-three years of age and
living in Charleston, won $1,500 in an East Bay Street lottery, $600 of
which he devoted immediately to the purchase of his freedom. The sum was
much less than he was really worth, but Captain Vesey liked him and had no
reason to drive a hard bargain with him.
In the early years of his full manhood accordingly Denmark Vesey found
himself a free man in his own right and possessed of the means for a little
real start in life. He improved his time and proceeded to win greater
standing and recognition by regular and industrious work at his trade, that
of a carpenter. Over the slaves he came to have unbounded influence.
Among them, in accordance with the standards of the day, he had several
wives and children (none of whom could he call his own), and he
understood perfectly the fervor and faith and superstition of the Negroes
with whom he had to deal. To his remarkable personal magnetism moreover
he added just the strong passion and the domineering temper that were
needed to make his conquest complete.
Thus for twenty years he worked on. He already knew French as well as
English, but he now studied and reflected upon as wide a range of subjects
as possible. It was not expected at the time that there would be religious
classes or congregations of Negroes apart from the white people; but the
law was not strictly observed, and for a number of years a Negro
congregation had a church in Hampstead in the suburbs of Charleston. At
the meetings here and elsewhere Vesey found his opportunity, and he drew
interesting parallels between the experiences of the Jews and the Negroes.
He would rebuke a companion on the street for bowing to a white person;
and if such a man replied, "We are slaves," he would say, "You deserve to
be." If the man then asked what he could do to better his condition, he
would say, "Go and buy a spelling-book and read the fable of Hercules and
the wagoner."105 At the same time if he happened to engage in conversation
with white people in the presence of Negroes, he would often take occasion
to introduce some striking remark on slavery. He regularly held up to
emulation the work of the Negroes of Santo Domingo; and either he or one
of his chief lieutenants clandestinely sent a letter to the President of Santo
Domingo to ask if the people there would help the Negroes of Charleston if

the latter made an effort to free themselves.106 About 1820 moreover, when
he heard of the African Colonization scheme and the opportunity came to
him to go, he put this by, waiting for something better. This was the period
of the Missouri Compromise. Reports of the agitation and of the debates in
Congress were eagerly scanned by those Negroes in Charleston who could
read; rumor exaggerated them; and some of the more credulous of the
slaves came to believe that the efforts of Northern friends had actually
emancipated them and that they were being illegally held in bondage. Nor
was the situation improved when the city marshal, John J. Lafar, on January
15, 1821, reminded those ministers or other persons who kept night and
Sunday schools for Negroes that the law forbade the education of such
persons and would have to be enforced. Meanwhile Vesey was very patient.
After a few months, however, he ceased to work at his trade in order that all
the more he might devote himself to the mission of his life. This was, as he
conceived it, an insurrection that would do nothing less than totally
annihilate the white population of Charleston.
In the prosecution of such a plan the greatest secrecy and faithfulness
were of course necessary, and Vesey waited until about Christmas, 1821, to
begin active recruiting. He first sounded Ned and Rolla Bennett, slaves of
Governor Thomas Bennett, and then Peter Poyas and Jack Purcell. After
Christmas he spoke to Gullah Jack and Monday Gell; and Lot Forrester and
Frank Ferguson became his chief agents for the plantations outside of
Charleston.107 In the whole matter of the choice of his chief assistants he
showed remarkable judgment of character. His penetration was almost
uncanny. "Rolla was plausible, and possessed uncommon self-possession;
bold and ardent, he was not to be deterred from his purpose by danger.
Ned's appearance indicated that he was a man of firm nerves and desperate
courage. Peter was intrepid and resolute, true to his engagements, and
cautious in observing secrecy when it was necessary; he was not to be
daunted or impeded by difficulties, and though confident of success, was
careful in providing against any obstacles or casualties which might arise,
and intent upon discovering every means which might be in their power if
thought of beforehand. Gullah Jack was regarded as a sorcerer, and as such
feared by the natives of Africa, who believe in witchcraft. He was not only
considered invulnerable, but that he could make others so by his charms;
and that he could and certainly would provide all his followers with arms....
His influence amongst the Africans was inconceivable. Monday was firm,

resolute, discreet, and intelligent."108 He was also daring and active, a
harness-maker in the prime of life, and he could read and write with
facility; but he was also the only man of prominence in the conspiracy
whose courage failed him in court and who turned traitor. To these names
must be added that of Batteau Bennett, who was only eighteen years old
and who brought to the plan all the ardor and devotion of youth. In general
Vesey sought to bring into the plan those Negroes, such as stevedores and
mechanics, who worked away from home and who had some free time. He
would not use men who were known to become intoxicated, and one
talkative man named George he excluded from his meetings. Nor did he use
women, not because he did not trust them, but because in case of mishap he
wanted the children to be properly cared for. "Take care," said Peter Poyas,
in speaking about the plan to one of the recruits, "and don't mention it to
those waiting men who receive presents of old coats, etc., from their
masters, or they'll betray us; I will speak to them."
With his lieutenants Vesey finally brought into the plan the Negroes for
seventy or eighty miles around Charleston. The second Monday in July,
1822, or Sunday, July 14, was the time originally set for the attack. July was
chosen because in midsummer many of the white people were away at
different resorts; and Sunday received favorable consideration because on
that day the slaves from the outlying plantations were frequently permitted
to come to the city. Lists of the recruits were kept. Peter Poyas is said to
have gathered as many as six hundred names, chiefly from that part of
Charleston known as South Bay in which he lived; and it is a mark of his
care and discretion that of all of those afterwards arrested and tried, not one
belonged to his company. Monday Gell, who joined late and was very
prudent, had forty-two names. All such lists, however, were in course of
time destroyed. "During the period that these enlistments were carrying on,
Vesey held frequent meetings of the conspirators at his house; and as arms
were necessary to their success, each night a hat was handed round, and
collections made, for the purpose of purchasing them, and also to defray
other necessary expenses. A Negro who was a blacksmith and had been
accustomed to make edged tools, was employed to make pike-heads and
bayonets with sockets, to be fixed at the ends of long poles and used as
pikes. Of these pike-heads and bayonets, one hundred were said to have
been made at an early day, and by the 16th June as many as two or three
hundred, and between three and four hundred daggers."109 A bundle

containing some of the poles, neatly trimmed and smoothed off, and nine or
ten feet long, was afterwards found concealed on a farm on Charleston
Neck, where several of the meetings were held, having been carried there to
have the pike-heads and bayonets fixed in place. Governor Bennett stated
that the number of poles thus found was thirteen, but so wary were the
Negroes that he and other prominent men underestimated the means of
attack. It was thought that the Negroes in Charleston might use their
masters' arms, while those from the country were to bring hoes, hatchets,
and axes. For their main supply of arms, however, Vesey and Peter Poyas
depended upon the magazines and storehouses in the city. They planned to
seize the Arsenal in Meeting Street opposite St. Michael's Church; it was
the key to the city, held the arms of the state, and had for some time been
neglected. Poyas at a given signal at midnight was to move upon this point,
killing the sentinel. Two large gun and powder stores were by arrangement
to be at the disposal of the insurrectionists; and other leaders, coming from
six different directions, were to seize strategic points and thus aid the
central work of Poyas. Meanwhile a body of horse was to keep the streets
clear. "Eat only dry food," said Gullah Jack as the day approached, "parched
corn and ground nuts, and when you join us as we pass put this crab claw in
your mouth and you can't be wounded."
On May 25110 a slave of Colonel Prioleau, while on an errand at the
wharf, was accosted by another slave, William Paul, who remarked: "I have
often seen a flag with the number 76, but never one with the number 96
upon it before." As this man showed no knowledge of what was going on,
Paul spoke to him further and quite frankly about the plot. The slave
afterwards spoke to a free man about what he had heard; this man advised
him to tell his master about it; and so he did on Prioleau's return on May 30.
Prioleau immediately informed the Intendant, or Mayor, and by five o'clock
in the afternoon both the slave and Paul were being examined. Paul was
placed in confinement, but not before his testimony had implicated Peter
Poyas and Mingo Harth, a man who had been appointed to lead one of the
companies of horse. Harth and Poyas were cool and collected, however,
they ridiculed the whole idea, and the wardens, completely deceived,
discharged them. In general at this time the authorities were careful and
endeavored not to act hastily. About June 8, however, Paul, greatly excited
and fearing execution, confessed that the plan was very extensive and said
that it was led by an individual who bore a charmed life. Ned Bennett,

hearing that his name had been mentioned, voluntarily went before the
Intendant and asked to be examined, thus again completely baffling the
officials. All the while, in the face of the greatest danger, Vesey continued to
hold his meetings. By Friday, June 14, however, another informant had
spoken to his master, and all too fully were Peter Poyas's fears about
"waiting-men" justified. This man said that the original plan had been
changed, for the night of Sunday, June 16, was now the time set for the
insurrection, and otherwise he was able to give all essential information.111
On Saturday night, June 15, Jesse Blackwood, an aid sent into the country
to prepare the slaves to enter the following day, while he penetrated two
lines of guards, was at the third line halted and sent back into the city. Vesey
now realized in a moment that all his plans were disclosed, and immediately
he destroyed any papers that might prove to be incriminating. "On Sunday,
June 16, at ten o'clock at night, Captain Cattle's Corps of Hussars, Captain
Miller's Light Infantry, Captain Martindale's Neck Rangers, the Charleston
Riflemen and the City Guard were ordered to rendezvous for guard, the
whole organized as a detachment under command of Colonel R.Y.
Hayne."112 It was his work on this occasion that gave Hayne that appeal to
the public which was later to help him to pass on to the governorship and
then to the United States Senate. On the fateful night twenty or thirty men
from the outlying districts who had not been able to get word of the
progress of events, came to the city in a small boat, but Vesey sent word to
them to go back as quickly as possible.
Two courts were formed for the trial of the conspirators. The first, after a
long session of five weeks, was dissolved July 20; a second was convened,
but after three days closed its investigation and adjourned August 8.113 All
the while the public mind was greatly excited. The first court, which
speedily condemned thirty-four men to death, was severely criticized. The
New York Daily Advertiser termed the execution "a bloody sacrifice"; but
Charleston replied with the reminder of the Negroes who had been burned
in New York in 1741.114 Some of the Negroes blamed the leaders for the
trouble into which they had been brought, but Vesey himself made no
confession. He was by no means alone. "Do not open your lips," said Poyas;
"die silent as you shall see me do." Something of the solicitude of owners
for their slaves may be seen from the request of Governor Bennett himself
in behalf of Batteau Bennett. He asked for a special review of the case of

this young man, who was among those condemned to death, "with a view to
the mitigation of his punishment." The court did review the case, but it did
not change its sentence. Throughout the proceedings the white people of
Charleston were impressed by the character of those who had taken part in
the insurrection; "many of them possessed the highest confidence of their
owners, and not one was of bad character."115
As a result of this effort for freedom one hundred and thirty-one Negroes
were arrested; thirty-five were executed and forty-three banished.116 Of
those executed, Denmark Vesey, Peter Poyas, Ned Bennett, Rolla Bennett,
Batteau Bennett, and Jesse Blackwood were hanged July 2; Gullah Jack and
one more on July 12; twenty-two were hanged on a huge gallows Friday,
July 26; four more were hanged July 30, and one on August 9. Of those
banished, twelve had been sentenced for execution, but were afterwards
given banishment instead; twenty-one were to be transported by their
masters beyond the limits of the United States; one, a free man, required to
leave the state, satisfied the court by offering to leave the United States,
while nine others who were not definitely sentenced were strongly
recommended to their owners for banishment. The others of the one
hundred and thirty-one were acquitted. The authorities at length felt that
they had executed enough to teach the Negroes a lesson, and the hanging
ceased; but within the next year or two Governor Bennett and others gave to
the world most gloomy reflections upon the whole proceeding and upon the
grave problem at their door. Thus closed the insurrection that for the
ambitiousness of its plan, the care with which it was matured, and the
faithfulness of the leaders to one another, was never equalled by a similar
attempt for freedom in the United States.

2. Nat Turner's Insurrection

About noon on Sunday, August 21, 1831, on the plantation of Joseph
Travis at Cross Keys, in Southampton County, in Southeastern Virginia,
were gathered four Negroes, Henry Porter, Hark Travis, Nelson Williams,
and Sam Francis, evidently preparing for a barbecue. They were soon
joined by a gigantic and athletic Negro named Will Francis, and by another
named Jack Reese. Two hours later came a short, strong-looking man who
had a face of great resolution and at whom one would not have needed to

glance a second time to know that he was to be the master-spirit of the
company. Seeing Will and his companion he raised a question as to their
being present, to which Will replied that life was worth no more to him than
the others and that liberty was as dear to him. This answer satisfied the
latest comer, and Nat Turner now went into conference with his most
trusted friends. One can only imagine the purpose, the eagerness, and the
firmness on those dark faces throughout that long summer afternoon and
evening. When at last in the night the low whispering ceased, the doom of
nearly three-score white persons—and it might be added, of twice as many
Negroes—was sealed.
Cross Keys was seventy miles from Norfolk, just about as far from
Richmond, twenty-five miles from the Dismal Swamp, fifteen miles from
Murfreesboro in North Carolina, and also fifteen miles from Jerusalem, the
county seat of Southampton County. The community was settled primarily
by white people of modest means. Joseph Travis, the owner of Nat Turner,
had recently married the widow of one Putnam Moore.
Nat Turner, who originally belonged to one Benjamin Turner, was born
October 2, 1800. He was mentally precocious and had marks on his head
and breast which were interpreted by the Negroes who knew him as
marking him for some high calling. In his mature years he also had on his
right arm a knot which was the result of a blow which he had received. He
experimented in paper, gunpowder, and pottery, and it is recorded of him
that he was never known to swear an oath, to drink a drop of spirits, or to
commit a theft. Instead he cultivated fasting and prayer and the reading of
the Bible.
More and more Nat gave himself up to a life of the spirit and to
communion with the voices that he said he heard. He once ran away for a
month, but felt commanded by the spirit to return. About 1825 a
consciousness of his great mission came to him, and daily he labored to
make himself more worthy. As he worked in the field he saw drops of blood
on the corn, and he also saw white spirits and black spirits contending in the
skies. While he thus so largely lived in a religious or mystical world and
was immersed, he was not a professional Baptist preacher. On May 12,
1828, he was left no longer in doubt. A great voice said unto him that the
Serpent was loosed, that Christ had laid down the yoke, that he, Nat, was to
take it up again, and that the time was fast approaching when the first

should be last and the last should be first. An eclipse of the sun in February,
1831, was interpreted as the sign for him to go forward. Yet he waited a
little longer, until he had made sure of his most important associates. It is
worthy of note that when he began his work, while he wanted the killing to
be as effective and widespread as possible, he commanded that no outrage
be committed, and he was obeyed.
When on the Sunday in August Nat and his companions finished their
conference, they went to find Austin, a brother-spirit; and then all went to
the cider-press and drank except Nat. It was understood that he as the leader
was to spill the first blood, and that he was to begin with his own master,
Joseph Travis. Going to the house, Hark placed a ladder against the
chimney. On this Nat ascended; then he went downstairs, unbarred the
doors, and removed the guns from their places. He and Will together
entered Travis's chamber, and the first blow was given to the master of the
house. The hatchet glanced off and Travis called to his wife; but this was
with his last breath, for Will at once despatched him with his ax. The wife
and the three children of the house were also killed immediately. Then
followed a drill of the company, after which all went to the home of
Salathiel Francis six hundred yards away. Sam and Will knocked, and
Francis asked who was there. Sam replied that he had a letter, for him. The
man came to the door, where he was seized and killed by repeated blows
over the head. He was the only white person in the house. In silence all
passed on to the home of Mrs. Reese, who was killed while asleep in bed.
Her son awoke, but was also immediately killed. A mile away the
insurrectionists came to the home of Mrs. Turner, which they reached about
sunrise on Monday morning. Henry, Austin, and Sam went to the still,
where they found and killed the overseer, Peebles, Austin shooting him.
Then all went to the house. The family saw them coming and shut the door
—to no avail, however, as Will with one stroke of his ax opened it and
entered to find Mrs. Turner and Mrs. Newsome in the middle of the room
almost frightened to death. Will killed Mrs. Turner with one blow of his ax,
and after Nat had struck Mrs. Newsome over the head with his sword, Will
turned and killed her also. By this time the company amounted to fifteen.
Nine went mounted to the home of Mrs. Whitehead and six others went
along a byway to the home of Henry Bryant. As they neared the first house
Richard Whitehead, the son of the family, was standing in the cotton-patch
near the fence. Will killed him with his ax immediately. In the house he

killed Mrs. Whitehead, almost severing her head from her body with one
blow. Margaret, a daughter, tried to conceal herself and ran, but was killed
by Turner with a fence-rail. The men in this first company were now joined
by those in the second, the six who had gone to the Bryant home, who
informed them that they had done the work assigned, which was to kill
Henry Bryant himself, his wife and child, and his wife's mother. By this
time the killing had become fast and furious. The company divided again;
some would go ahead, and Nat would come up to find work already
accomplished. Generally fifteen or twenty of the best mounted were put in
front to strike terror and prevent escape, and Nat himself frequently did not
get to the houses where killing was done. More and more the Negroes, now
about forty in number, were getting drunken and noisy. The alarm was
given, and by nine or ten o'clock on Monday morning one Captain Harris
and his family had escaped. Prominent among the events of the morning,
however, was the killing at the home of Mrs. Waller of ten children who
were gathering for school.117
As the men neared the home of James Parker, it was suggested that they
call there; but Turner objected, as this man had already gone to Jerusalem
and he himself wished to reach the county seat as soon as possible.
However, he and some of the men remained at the gate while others went to
the house half a mile away. This exploit proved to be the turning-point of
the events of the day. Uneasy at the delay of those who went to the house,
Turner went thither also. On his return he was met by a company of white
men who had fired on those Negroes left at the gate and dispersed them. On
discovering these men, Turner ordered his own men to halt and form, as
now they were beginning to be alarmed. The white men, eighteen in
number, approached and fired, but were forced to retreat. Reënforcements
for them from Jerusalem were already at hand, however, and now the great
pursuit of the Negro insurrectionists began.
Hark's horse was shot under him and five or six of the men were
wounded. Turner's force was largely dispersed, but on Monday night he
stopped at the home of Major Ridley, and his company again increased to
forty. He tried to sleep a little, but a sentinel gave the alarm; all were soon
up and the number was again reduced to twenty. Final resistance was
offered at the home of Dr. Blunt, but here still more of the men were put to
flight and were never again seen by Turner.

A little later, however, the leader found two of his men named Jacob and
Nat. These he sent with word to Henry, Hark, Nelson, and Sam to meet him
at the place where on Sunday they had taken dinner together. With what
thoughts Nat Turner returned alone to this place on Tuesday evening can
only be imagined. Throughout the night he remained, but no one joined him
and he presumed that his followers had all either been taken or had deserted
him. Nor did any one come on Wednesday, or on Thursday. On Thursday
night, having supplied himself with provisions from the Travis home, he
scratched a hole under a pile of fence-rails, and here he remained for six
weeks, leaving only at night to get water. All the while of course he had no
means of learning of the fate of his companions or of anything else.
Meanwhile not only the vicinity but the whole South was being wrought up
to an hysterical state of mind. A reward of $500 for the capture of the man
was offered by the Governor, and other rewards were also offered. On
September 30 a false account of his capture appeared in the newspapers; on
October 7 another; on October 8 still another. By this time Turner had
begun to move about a little at night, not speaking to any human being and
returning always to his hole before daybreak. Early on October 15 a dog
smelt his provisions and led thither two Negroes. Nat appealed to these men
for protection, but they at once began to run and excitedly spread the news.
Turner fled in another direction and for ten days more hid among the wheat-
stacks on the Francis plantation. All the while not less than five hundred
men were on the watch for him, and they found the stick that he had
notched from day to day. Once he thought of surrendering, and walked
within two miles of Jerusalem. Three times he tried to get away, and failed.
On October 25 he was discovered by Francis, who discharged at him a load
of buckshot, twelve of which passed through his hat, and he was at large for
five days more. On October 30 Benjamin Phipps, a member of the patrol,
passing a clearing in the woods noticed a motion among the boughs. He
paused, and gradually he saw Nat's head emerging from a hole beneath. The
fugitive now gave up as he knew that the woods were full of men. He was
taken to the nearest house, and the crowd was so great and the excitement
so intense that it was with difficulty that he was taken to Jerusalem. For
more than two months, from August 25 to October 30, he had eluded his
pursuers, remaining all the while in the vicinity of his insurrection.
While Nat Turner was in prison, Thomas C. Gray, his counsel, received
from him what are known as his "Confessions." This pamphlet is now

almost inaccessible,118 but it was in great demand at the time it was printed
and it is now the chief source for information about the progress of the
insurrection. Turner was tried November 5 and sentenced to be hanged six
days later. Asked in court by Gray if he still believed in the providential
nature of his mission, he asked, "Was not Christ crucified?" Of his
execution itself we read: "Nat Turner was executed according to sentence,
on Friday, the 11th of November, 1831, at Jerusalem, between the hours of
10 A.M. and 2 P.M. He exhibited the utmost composure throughout the
whole ceremony; and, although assured that he might, if he thought proper,
address the immense crowd assembled on the occasion, declined availing
himself of the privilege; and, being asked if he had any further confessions
to make, replied that he had nothing more than he had communicated; and
told the sheriff in a firm voice that he was ready. Not a limb or muscle was
observed to move. His body, after death, was given over to the surgeons for
dissection."
Of fifty-three Negroes arraigned in connection with the insurrection
"seventeen were executed and twelve transported. The rest were discharged,
except ... four free Negroes sent on to the Superior Court. Three of the four
were executed." 119 Such figures as these, however, give no conception of
the number of those who lost their lives in connection with the insurrection.
In general, if slaves were convicted by legal process and executed or
transported, or if they escaped before trial, they were paid for by the
commonwealth; if killed, they were not paid for, and a man like Phipps
might naturally desire to protect his prisoner in order to get his reward. In
spite of this, the Negroes were slaughtered without trial and sometimes
under circumstances of the greatest barbarity. One man proudly boasted that
he had killed between ten and fifteen. A party went from Richmond with the
intention of killing every Negro in Southampton County. Approaching the
cabin of a free Negro they asked, "Is this Southampton County?" "Yes, sir,"
came the reply, "you have just crossed the line by yonder tree." They shot
him dead and rode on. In general the period was one of terror, with
voluntary patrols, frequently drunk, going in all directions. These men
tortured, burned, or maimed the Negroes practically at will. Said one old
woman 120 of them: "The patrols were low drunken whites, and in Nat's
time, if they heard any of the colored folks prayin' or singin' a hymn, they
would fall upon 'em and abuse 'em, and sometimes kill 'em.... The brightest
and best was killed in Nat's time. The whites always suspect such ones.

They killed a great many at a place called Duplon. They killed Antonio, a
slave of Mr. J. Stanley, whom they shot; then they pointed their guns at him
and told him to confess about the insurrection. He told 'em he didn't know
anything about any insurrection. They shot several balls through him,
quartered him, and put his head on a pole at the fork of the road leading to
the court.... It was there but a short time. He had no trial. They never do. In
Nat's time, the patrols would tie up the free colored people, flog 'em, and try
to make 'em lie against one another, and often killed them before anybody
could interfere. Mr. James Cole, High Sheriff, said if any of the patrols
came on his plantation, he would lose his life in defense of his people. One
day he heard a patroller boasting how many Negroes he had killed. Mr.
Cole said, 'If you don't pack up, as quick as God Almighty will let you, and
get out of this town, and never be seen in it again, I'll put you where dogs
won't bark at you.' He went off, and wasn't seen in them parts again."
The immediate panic created by the Nat Turner insurrection in Virginia
and the other states of the South it would be impossible to exaggerate.
When the news of what was happening at Cross Keys spread, two
companies, on horse and foot, came from Murfreesboro as quickly as
possible. On the Wednesday after the memorable Sunday night there came
from Fortress Monroe three companies and a piece of artillery. These
commands were reënforced from various sources until not less than eight
hundred men were in arms. Many of the Negroes fled to the Dismal
Swamp, and the wildest rumors were afloat. One was that Wilmington had
been burned, and in Raleigh and Fayetteville the wildest excitement
prevailed. In the latter place scores of white women and children fled to the
swamps, coming out two days afterwards muddy, chilled, and half-starved.
Slaves were imprisoned wholesale. In Wilmington four men were shot
without trial and their heads placed on poles at the four corners of the town.
In Macon, Ga., a report was circulated that an armed band of Negroes was
only five miles away, and within an hour the women and children were
assembled in the largest building in the town, with a military force in front
for protection.
The effects on legislation were immediate. Throughout the South the
slave codes became more harsh; and while it was clear that the uprising had
been one of slaves rather than of free Negroes, as usual special disabilities
fell upon the free people of color. Delaware, that only recently had limited
the franchise to white men, now forbade the use of firearms by free Negroes

and would not suffer any more to come within the state. Tennessee also
forbade such immigration, while Maryland passed a law to the effect that all
free Negroes must leave the state and be colonized in Africa—a monstrous
piece of legislation that it was impossible to put into effect and that showed
once for all the futility of attempts at forcible emigration as a solution of the
problem. In general, however, the insurrection assisted the colonization
scheme and also made more certain the carrying out of the policy of the
Jackson administration to remove the Indians of the South to the West. It
also focussed the attention of the nation upon the status of the Negro,
crystallized opinion in the North, and thus helped with the formation of
anti-slavery organizations. By it for the time being the Negro lost; in the
long run he gained.

3. The "Amistad" and "Creole" Cases

On June 28, 1839, a schooner, the Amistad, sailed from Havana bound
for Guanaja in the vicinity of Puerto Principe. She was under the command
of her owner, Don Ramon Ferrer, was laden with merchandise, and had on
board fifty-three Negroes, forty-nine of whom supposedly belonged to a
Spaniard, Don Jose Ruiz, the other four belonging to Don Pedro Montes.
During the night of June 30 the slaves, under the lead of one of their
number named Cinque, rose upon the crew, killed the captain, a slave of his,
and two sailors, and while they permitted most of the crew to escape, they
took into close custody the two owners, Ruiz and Montes. Montes, who had
some knowledge of nautical affairs, was ordered to steer the vessel back to
Africa. So he did by day, when the Negroes would watch him, but at night
he tried to make his way to some land nearer at hand. Other vessels passed
from time to time, and from these the Negroes bought provisions, but
Montes and Ruiz were so closely watched that they could not make known
their plight. At length, on August 26, the schooner reached Long Island
Sound, where it was detained by the American brig-of-war Washington, in
command of Captain Gedney, who secured the Negroes and took them to
New London, Conn. It took a year and a half to dispose of the issue thus
raised. The case attracted the greatest amount of attention, led to
international complications, and was not really disposed of until a former
President had exhaustively argued the case for the Negroes before the
Supreme Court of the United States.

In a letter of September 6, 1839, to John Forsyth, the American Secretary
of State, Calderon, the Spanish minister, formally made four demands: 1.
That the Amistad be immediately delivered up to her owner, together with
every article on board at the time of her capture; 2. That it be declared that
no tribunal in the United States had the right to institute proceedings
against, or to impose penalties upon, the subjects of Spain, for crimes
committed on board a Spanish vessel, and in the waters of Spanish territory;
3. That the Negroes be conveyed to Havana or otherwise placed at the
disposal of the representatives of Spain; and 4. That if, in consequence of
the intervention of the authorities in Connecticut, there should be any delay
in the desired delivery of the vessel and the slaves, the owners both of the
latter and of the former be indemnified for the injury that might accrue to
them. In support of his demands Calderon invoked "the law of nations, the
stipulations of existing treaties, and those good feelings so necessary in the
maintenance of the friendly relations that subsist between the two countries,
and are so interesting to both." Forsyth asked for any papers bearing on the
question, and Calderon replied that he had none except "the declaration on
oath of Montes and Ruiz."
Meanwhile the abolitionists were insisting that protection had not been
afforded the African strangers cast on American soil and that in no case did
the executive arm of the Government have any authority to interfere with
the regular administration of justice. "These Africans," it was said, "are
detained in jail, under process of the United States courts, in a free state,
after it has been decided by the District Judge, on sufficient proof, that they
are recently from Africa, were never the lawful slaves of Ruiz and Montes,"
and "when it is clear as noonday that there is no law or treaty stipulation
that requires the further detention of these Africans or their delivery to
Spain or its subjects."
Writing on October 24 to the Spanish representative with reference to the
arrest of Ruiz and Montes, Forsyth informed him that the two Spanish
subjects had been arrested on process issuing from the superior court of the
city of New York upon affidavits of certain men, natives of Africa, "for the
purpose of securing their appearance before the proper tribunal, to answer
for wrongs alleged to have been inflicted by them upon the persons of said
Africans," that, consequently, the occurrence constituted simply a "case of
resort by individuals against others to the judicial courts of the country,
which are equally open to all without distinction," and that the agency of

the Government to obtain the release of Messrs. Ruiz and Montes could not
be afforded in the manner requested. Further pressure was brought to bear
by the Spanish representative, however, and there was cited the case of
Abraham Wendell, captain of the brig Franklin, who was prosecuted at first
by Spanish officials for maltreatment of his mate, but with reference to
whom documents were afterwards sent from Havana to America. Much
more correspondence followed, and Felix Grundy, of Tennessee, Attorney
General of the United States, at length muddled everything by the following
opinion: "These Negroes deny that they are slaves; if they should be
delivered to the claimants, no opportunity may be afforded for the assertion
of their right to freedom. For these reasons, it seems to me that a delivery to
the Spanish minister is the only safe course for this Government to pursue."
The fallacy of all this was shown in a letter dated November 18, 1839, from
B.F. Butler, United States District Attorney in New York, to Aaron Vail,
acting Secretary of State. Said Butler: "It does not appear to me that any
question has yet arisen under the treaty with Spain; because, although it is
an admitted principle, that neither the courts of this state, nor those of the
United States, can take jurisdiction of criminal offenses committed by
foreigners within the territory of a foreign state, yet it is equally settled in
this country, that our courts will take cognizance of civil actions between
foreigners transiently within our jurisdiction, founded upon contracts or
other transactions made or had in a foreign state." Southern influence was
strong, however, and a few weeks afterwards an order was given from the
Department of State to have a vessel anchor off New Haven, Conn., January
10, 1840, to receive the Negroes from the United States marshal and take
them to Cuba; and on January 7 the President, Van Buren, issued the
necessary warrant.
The rights of humanity, however, were not to be handled in this summary
fashion. The executive order was stayed, and the case went further on its
progress to the highest tribunal in the land. Meanwhile the anti-slavery
people were teaching the Africans the rudiments of English in order that
they might be better able to tell their own story. From the first a committee
had been appointed to look out for their interests and while they were
awaiting the final decision in their case they cultivated a garden of fifteen
acres.
The appearance of John Quincy Adams in behalf of these Negroes before
the Supreme Court of the United States February 24 and March 1, 1841, is

in every way one of the most beautiful acts in American history. In the
fullness of years, with his own administration as President twelve years
behind him, the "Old Man Eloquent" came once more to the tribunal that he
knew so well to make a last plea for the needy and oppressed. To the task he
brought all his talents—his profound knowledge of law, his unrivaled
experience, and his impressive personality; and his argument covers 135
octavo pages. He gave an extended analysis of the demand of the Spanish
minister, who asked the President to do what he simply had no
constitutional right to do. "The President," said Adams, "has no power to
arrest either citizens or foreigners. But even that power is almost
insignificant compared with that of sending men beyond seas to deliver
them up to a foreign government." The Secretary of State had "degraded the
country, in the face of the whole civilized world, not only by allowing these
demands to remain unanswered, but by proceeding, throughout the whole
transaction, as if the Executive were earnestly desirous to comply with
every one of the demands." The Spanish minister had naturally insisted in
his demands because he had not been properly met at first. The slave-trade
was illegal by international agreement, and the only thing to do under the
circumstances was to release the Negroes. Adams closed his plea with a
magnificent review of his career and of the labors of the distinguished
jurists he had known in the court for nearly forty years, and be it recorded
wherever the name of Justice is spoken, he won his case.
Lewis Tappan now accompanied the Africans on a tour through the states
to raise money for their passage home. The first meeting was in Boston.
Several members of the company interested the audience by their readings
from the New Testament or by their descriptions of their own country and
of the horrors of the voyage. Cinque gave the impression of great dignity
and of extraordinary ability; and Kali, a boy only eleven years of age, also
attracted unusual attention. Near the close of 1841, accompanied by five
missionaries and teachers, the Africans set sail from New York, to make
their way first to Sierra Leone and then to their own homes as well as they
could.
While this whole incident of the Amistad was still engaging the interest
of the public, there occurred another that also occasioned international
friction and even more prolonged debate between the slavery and anti-
slavery forces. On October 25, 1841, the brig Creole, Captain Ensor, of
Richmond, Va., sailed from Richmond and on October 27 from Hampton

Roads, with a cargo of tobacco and one hundred and thirty slaves bound for
New Orleans. On the vessel also, aside from the crew, were the captain's
wife and child, and three or four passengers, who were chiefly in charge of
the slaves, one man, John R. Hewell, being directly in charge of those
belonging to an owner named McCargo. About 9.30 on the night of Sunday,
November 7, while out at sea, nineteen of the slaves rose, cowed the others,
wounded the captain, and generally took command of the vessel. Madison
Washington began the uprising by an attack on Gifford, the first mate, and
Ben Blacksmith, one of the most aggressive of his assistants, killed Hewell.
The insurgents seized the arms of the vessel, permitted no conversation
between members of the crew except in their hearing, demanded and
obtained the manifests of slaves, and threatened that if they were not taken
to Abaco or some other British port they would throw the officers and crew
overboard. The Creole reached Nassau, New Providence, on Tuesday,
November 9, and the arrival of the vessel at once occasioned intense
excitement. Gifford went ashore and reported the matter, and the American
consul, John F. Bacon, contended to the English authorities that the slaves
on board the brig were as much a part of the cargo as the tobacco and
entitled to the same protection from loss to the owners. The governor, Sir
Francis Cockburn, however, was uncertain whether to interfere in the
business at all. He liberated those slaves who were not concerned in the
uprising, spoke of all of the slaves as "passengers," and guaranteed to the
nineteen who were shown by an investigation to have been connected with
the uprising all the rights of prisoners called before an English court. He
told them further that the British Government would be communicated with
before their case was finally passed upon, that if they wished copies of the
informations these would be furnished them, and that they were privileged
to have witnesses examined in refutation of the charges against them. From
time to time Negroes who were natives of the island crowded about the brig
in small boats and intimidated the American crew, but when on the morning
of November 12 the Attorney General questioned them as to their intentions
they replied with transparent good humor that they intended no violence
and had assembled only for the purpose of conveying to shore such of the
persons on the Creole as might be permitted to leave and might need their
assistance. The Attorney General required, however, that they throw
overboard a dozen stout cudgels that they had. Here the whole case really
rested. Daniel Webster as Secretary of State aroused the anti-slavery

element by making a strong demand for the return of the slaves, basing his
argument on the sacredness of vessels flying the American flag; but the
English authorities at Nassau never returned any of them. On March 21,
1842, Joshua R. Giddings, untiring defender of the rights of the Negro,
offered in the House of Representatives resolutions to the effect that slavery
could exist only by positive law of the different states; that the states had
delegated no control over slavery to the Federal Government, which alone
had jurisdiction on the high seas, and that, therefore, slaves on the high seas
became free and the coastwise trade was unconstitutional. The House,
strongly pro-Southern, replied with a vote of censure and Giddings
resigned, but he was immediately reëlected by his Ohio constituency.
Footnote 105: (return)
Official Report, 19.

Footnote 106: (return)
Official Report, 96-97, and Higginson, 232-3.

Footnote 107: (return)
Official Report, 20. Note that Higginson, who was so untiring in his research,
strangely confuses Jack Purcell and Gullah Jack (p. 230). The men were quite
distinct, as appears throughout the report and from the list of those executed. The
name of Gullah Jack's owner was Pritchard.

Footnote 108: (return)
Official Report, 24. Note that this remarkable characterization was given by the
judges, Kennedy and Parker, who afterwards condemned the men to death.

Footnote 109: (return)
Official Report, 31-32.

Footnote 110: (return)
Higginson, 215.

Footnote 111: (return)
For reasons of policy the names of these informers were withheld from
publication, but they were well known, of course, to the Negroes of Charleston.
The published documents said of the chief informer, "It would be a libel on the
liberality and gratitude of this community to suppose that this man can be
overlooked among those who are to be rewarded for their fidelity and principle."
The author has been informed that his reward for betraying his people was to be
officially and legally declared "a white man."

Footnote 112: (return)
Jervey: Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, 131-2.

Footnote 113: (return)
Bennett letter.

Footnote 114: (return)
See City Gazette, August 14, 1822, cited by Jervey.

Footnote 115: (return)
Official Report, 44.

Footnote 116: (return)
The figure is sometimes given as 37, but the lists total 43.

Footnote 117: (return)
In "Horrid Massacre," or, to use the more formal title, "Authentic and Impartial
Narrative of the Tragical Scene which was Witnessed in Southampton County
(Virginia) on Monday the 22d of August Last," the list below of the victims of
Nat Turner's insurrection is given. It must be said about this work, however, that
it is not altogether impeccable; it seems to have been prepared very hastily after
the event, its spelling of names is often arbitrary, and instead of the fifty-five
victims noted it appears that at least fifty-seven white persons were killed:

Joseph Travis, wife and three children 5
Mrs. Elizabeth Turner, Hartwell Peebles, and Sarah Newsum 3
Mrs. Piety Reese and son, William 2
Trajan Doyal 1
Henry Briant, wife and child, and wife's mother 4
Mrs. Catherine Whitehead, her son Richard, four daughters and a 7
grandchild
Salathael Francis 1
Nathaniel Francis's overseer and two children 3
John T. Barrow and George Vaughan 2
Mrs. Levi Waller and ten children 11
Mr. William Williams, wife and two boys 4
Mrs. Caswell Worrell and child 2
Mrs. Rebacca Vaughan, Ann Eliza Vaughan, and son Arthur 3
Mrs. Jacob Williams and three children and Edwin Drewry 5
—

55

Footnote 118: (return)
The only copy that the author has seen is that in the library of Harvard
University.

Footnote 119: (return)
Drewry, 101.

Footnote 120: (return)
Charity Bowery, who gave testimony to L.M. Child, quoted by Higginson.

CHAPTER VIII
THE NEGRO REPLY, II: ORGANIZATION AND
AGITATION

It is not the purpose of the present chapter primarily to consider social
progress on the part of the Negro. A little later we shall endeavor to treat
this interesting subject for the period between the Missouri Compromise
and the Civil War. Just now we are concerned with the attitude of the Negro
himself toward the problem that seemed to present itself to America and for
which such different solutions were proposed. So far as slavery was
concerned, we have seen that the remedy suggested by Denmark Vesey and
Nat Turner was insurrection. It is only to state an historical fact, however, to
say that the great heart of the Negro people in the South did not believe in
violence, but rather hoped and prayed for a better day to come by some
other means. But what was the attitude of those people, progressive citizens
and thinking leaders, who were not satisfied with the condition of the race
and who had to take a stand on the issues that confronted them? If we study
the matter from this point of view, we shall find an amount of ferment and
unrest and honest difference of opinion that is sometimes overlooked or
completely forgotten in the questions of a later day.

1. Walker's "Appeal"

The most widely discussed book written by a Negro in the period was
one that appeared in Boston in 1829. David Walker, the author, had been
born in North Carolina in 1785, of a free mother and a slave father, and he
was therefore free.121 He received a fair education, traveled widely over the
United States, and by 1827 was living in Boston as the proprietor of a
second-hand clothing store on Brattle Street. He felt very strongly on the
subject of slavery and actually seems to have contemplated leading an

insurrection. In 1828 he addressed various audiences of Negroes in Boston
and elsewhere, and in 1829 he published his Appeal, in four articles;
together with a Preamble to the Coloured Citizens of the World, but in
particular, and very expressly, to those of the United States of America. The
book was remarkably successful. Appearing in September, by March of the
following year it had reached its third edition; and in each successive
edition the language was more bold and vigorous. Walker's projected
insurrection did not take place, and he himself died in 1830. While there
was no real proof of the fact, among the Negro people there was a strong
belief that he met with foul play.
Article I Walker headed "Our Wretchedness in Consequence of Slavery."
A trip over the United States had convinced him that the Negroes of the
country were "the most degraded, wretched and abject set of beings that
ever lived since the world began." He quoted a South Carolina paper as
saying, "The Turks are the most barbarous people in the world—they treat
the Greeks more like brutes than human beings"; and then from the same
paper cited an advertisement of the sale of eight Negro men and four
women. "Are we men?" he exclaimed. "I ask you, O! my brothers, are we
men?... Have we any other master but Jesus Christ alone? Is He not their
master as well as ours? What right, then, have we to obey and call any man
master but Himself? How we could be so submissive to a gang of men,
whom we can not tell whether they are as good as ourselves, or not, I never
could conceive." "The whites," he asserted, "have always been an unjust,
jealous, unmerciful, avaricious and bloodthirsty set of beings, always
seeking after power and authority." As heathen the white people had been
cruel enough, but as Christians they were ten times more so. As heathen
"they were not quite so audacious as to go and take vessel loads of men,
women and children, and in cold blood, through devilishness, throw them
into the sea, and murder them in all kind of ways. But being Christians,
enlightened and sensible, they are completely prepared for such hellish
cruelties." Next was considered "Our Wretchedness in Consequence of
Ignorance." In general the writer maintained that his people as a whole did
not have intelligence enough to realize their own degradation; even if boys
studied books they did not master their texts, nor did their information go
sufficiently far to enable them actually to meet the problems of life. If one
would but go to the South or West, he would see there a son take his
mother, who bore almost the pains of death to give him birth, and by the

command of a tyrant, strip her as naked as she came into the world and
apply the cowhide to her until she fell a victim to death in the road. He
would see a husband take his dear wife, not unfrequently in a pregnant state
and perhaps far advanced, and beat her for an unmerciful wretch, until her
infant fell a lifeless lump at her feet. Moreover, "there have been, and are
this day, in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, colored men
who are in league with tyrants and who receive a great portion of their daily
bread of the moneys which they acquire from the blood and tears of their
more miserable brethren, whom they scandalously deliver into the hands of
our natural enemies." In Article III Walker considered "Our Wretchedness
in Consequence of the Preachers of the Religion of Jesus Christ." Here was
a fertile field, which was only partially developed. Walker evidently did not
have at hand the utterances of Furman and others to serve as a definite point
of attack. He did point out, however, the general failure of Christian
ministers to live up to the teachings of Christ. "Even here in Boston," we
are informed, "pride and prejudice have got to such a pitch, that in the very
houses erected to the Lord they have built little places for the reception of
colored people, where they must sit during meeting, or keep away from the
house of God." Hypocrisy could hardly go further than that of preachers
who could not see the evils at their door but could "send out missionaries to
convert the heathen, notwithstanding." Article IV was headed "Our
Wretchedness in Consequence of the Colonizing Plan." This was a bitter
arraignment, especially directed against Henry Clay. "I appeal and ask
every citizen of these United States," said Walker, "and of the world, both
white and black, who has any knowledge of Mr. Clay's public labors for
these states—I want you candidly to answer the Lord, who sees the secrets
of your hearts, Do you believe that Mr. Henry Clay, late Secretary of State,
and now in Kentucky, is a friend to the blacks further than his personal
interest extends?... Does he care a pinch of snuff about Africa—whether it
remains a land of pagans and of blood, or of Christians, so long as he gets
enough of her sons and daughters to dig up gold and silver for him?... Was
he not made by the Creator to sit in the shade, and make the blacks work
without remuneration for their services, to support him and his family? I
have been for some time taking notice of this man's speeches and public
writings, but never to my knowledge have I seen anything in his writings
which insisted on the emancipation of slavery, which has almost ruined his
country." Walker then paid his compliments to Elias B. Caldwell and John

Randolph, the former of whom had said, "The more you improve the
condition of these people, the more you cultivate their minds, the more
miserable you make them in their present state." "Here," the work
continues, "is a demonstrative proof of a plan got up, by a gang of
slaveholders, to select the free people of color from among the slaves, that
our more miserable brethren may be the better secured in ignorance and
wretchedness, to work their farms and dig their mines, and thus go on
enriching the Christians with their blood and groans. What our brethren
could have been thinking about, who have left their native land and gone
away to Africa, I am unable to say.... The Americans may say or do as they
please, but they have to raise us from the condition of brutes to that of
respectable men, and to make a national acknowledgment to us for the
wrongs they have inflicted on us.... You may doubt it, if you please. I know
that thousands will doubt—they think they have us so well secured in
wretchedness, to them and their children, that it is impossible for such
things to occur. So did the antediluvians doubt Noah, until the day in which
the flood came and swept them away. So did the Sodomites doubt, until Lot
had got out of the city, and God rained down fire and brimstone from
heaven upon them and burnt them up. So did the king of Egypt doubt the
very existence of God, saying, 'Who is the Lord, that I should let Israel go?'
... So did the Romans doubt.... But they got dreadfully deceived."
This document created the greatest consternation in the South. The
Mayor of Savannah wrote to Mayor Otis of Boston, demanding that Walker
be punished. Otis, in a widely published letter, replied expressing his
disapproval of the pamphlet, but saying that the author had done nothing
that made him "amenable" to the laws. In Virginia the legislature considered
passing an "extraordinary bill," not only forbidding the circulation of such
seditious publications but forbidding the education of free Negroes. The bill
passed the House of Delegates, but failed in the Senate. The Appeal even
found its way to Louisiana, where there were already rumors of an
insurrection, and immediately a law was passed expelling all free Negroes
who had come to the state since 1825.

2. The Convention Movement

As may be inferred from Walker's attitude, the representative men of the
race were almost a unit in their opposition to colonization. They were not

always opposed to colonization itself, for some looked favorably upon
settlement in Canada, and a few hundred made their way to the West Indies.
They did object, however, to the plan offered by the American Colonization
Society, which more and more impressed them as a device on the part of
slaveholders to get free Negroes out of the country in order that slave labor
might be more valuable. Richard Allen, bishop of the African Methodist
Episcopal Church, and the foremost Negro of the period, said: "We were
stolen from our mother country and brought here. We have tilled the ground
and made fortunes for thousands, and still they are not weary of our
services. But they who stay to till the ground must be slaves. Is there not
land enough in America, or 'corn enough in Egypt'? Why should they send
us into a far country to die? See the thousands of foreigners emigrating to
America every year: and if there be ground sufficient for them to cultivate,
and bread for them to eat, why would they wish to send the first tillers of
the land away? Africans have made fortunes for thousands, who are yet
unwilling to part with their services; but the free must be sent away, and
those who remain must be slaves. I have no doubt that there are many good
men who do not see as I do, and who are sending us to Liberia; but they
have not duly considered the subject—they are not men of color. This land
which we have watered with our tears and our blood is now our mother
country, and we are well satisfied to stay where wisdom abounds and the
gospel is free."122 This point of view received popular expression in a song
which bore the cumbersome title, "The Colored Man's Opinion of
Colonization," and which was sung to the tune of "Home, Sweet Home."
The first stanza was as follows:
Great God, if the humble and weak are as dear
To thy love as the proud, to thy children give ear!
Our brethren would drive us in deserts to roam;
Forgive them, O Father, and keep us at home.
Home, sweet home!
We have no other; this, this is our home.123

To this sentiment formal expression was given in the measures adopted at
various Negro meetings in the North. In 1817 the greatest excitement was
occasioned by a report that through the efforts of the newly-formed
Colonization Society all free Negroes were forcibly to be deported from the

country. Resolutions of protest were adopted, and these were widely
circulated.124 Of special importance was the meeting in Philadelphia in
January, presided over by James Forten. Of this the full report is as follows:
At a numerous meeting of the people of color, convened at Bethel
Church, to take into consideration the propriety of remonstrating against the
contemplated measure that is to exile us from the land of our nativity, James
Forten was called to the chair, and Russell Parrott appointed secretary. The
intent of the meeting having been stated by the chairman, the following
resolutions were adopted without one dissenting voice:

WHEREAS, Our ancestors (not of choice) were the first
successful cultivators of the wilds of America, we their
descendants feel ourselves entitled to participate in the
blessings of her luxuriant soil, which their blood and sweat
manured; and that any measure or system of measures,
having a tendency to banish us from her bosom, would not
only be cruel, but in direct violation of those principles
which have been the boast of this republic,
Resolved, That we view with deep abhorrence the
unmerited stigma attempted to be cast upon the reputation of
the free people of color, by the promoters of this measure,
"that they are a dangerous and useless part of the
community," when in the state of disfranchisement in which
they live, in the hour of danger they ceased to remember
their wrongs, and rallied around the standard of their
country.
Resolved, That we never will separate ourselves
voluntarily from the slave population of this country; they
are our brethren by the ties of consanguinity, of suffering,
and of wrong; and we feel that there is more virtue in
suffering privations with them, than fancied advantages for a
season.
Resolved, That without arts, without science, without a
proper knowledge of government to cast upon the savage
wilds of Africa the free people of color, seems to us the
circuitous route through which they must return to perpetual
bondage.

Resolved, That having the strongest confidence in the
justice of God, and philanthropy of the free states, we
cheerfully submit our destinies to the guidance of Him who
suffers not a sparrow to fall without his special providence.
Resolved, That a committee of eleven persons be
appointed to open a correspondence with the honorable
Joseph Hopkinson, member of Congress from this city, and
likewise to inform him of the sentiments of this meeting, and
that the following named persons constitute the committee,
and that they have power to call a general meeting, when
they, in their judgment, may deem it proper: Rev. Absalom
Jones, Rev. Richard Allen, James Forten, Robert Douglass,
Francis Perkins, Rev. John Gloucester, Robert Gorden,
James Johnson, Quamoney Clarkson, John Summersett,
Randall Shepherd.
JAMES FORTEN, Chairman.
RUSSELL PARROTT, Secretary.

In 1827, in New York, was begun the publication of Freedom's Journal,
the first Negro newspaper in the United States. The editors were John B.
Russwurm and Samuel E. Cornish. Russwurm was a recent graduate of
Bowdoin College and was later to become better known as the governor of
Maryland in Africa. By 1830 feeling was acute throughout the country,
especially in Ohio and Kentucky, and on the part of Negro men had
developed the conviction that the time had come for national organization
and protest.
In the spring of 1830 Hezekiah Grice of Baltimore, who had become
personally acquainted with the work of Lundy and Garrison, sent a letter to
prominent Negroes in the free states bringing in question the general policy
of emigration.125 received no immediate response, but in August he
received from Richard Allen an urgent request to come at once to
Philadelphia. Arriving there he found in session a meeting discussing the
wisdom of emigration to Canada, and Allen "showed him a printed circular
signed by Peter Williams, rector of St. Philip's Church, New York, Peter
Vogelsang and Thomas L. Jennings of the same place, approving the plan of
convention."126 The Philadelphians now issued a call for a convention of

the Negroes of the United States to be held in their city September 15,
1830.
This September meeting was held in Bethel A.M.E. Church. Bishop
Richard Allen was chosen president, Dr. Belfast Burton of Philadelphia and
Austin Steward of Rochester vice-presidents, Junius C. Morell of
Pennsylvania secretary, and Robert Cowley of Maryland assistant secretary.
There were accredited delegates from seven states. While this meeting
might really be considered the first national convention of Negroes in the
United States (aside of course from the gathering of denominational
bodies), it seems to have been regarded merely as preliminary to a still
more formal assembling, for the minutes of the next year were printed as
the "Minutes and Proceedings of the First Annual Convention of the People
of Color, held by adjournments in the city of Philadelphia, from the sixth to
the eleventh of June, inclusive, 1831. Philadelphia, 1831." The meetings of
this convention were held in the Wesleyan Church on Lombard Street.
Richard Allen had died earlier in the year and Grice was not present; not
long afterwards he emigrated to Hayti, where he became prominent as a
contractor. Rev. James W.C. Pennington of New York, however, now for the
first time appeared on the larger horizon of race affairs; and John Bowers of
Philadelphia served as president, Abraham D. Shadd of Delaware and
William Duncan of Virginia as vice-presidents, William Whipper of
Philadelphia as secretary, and Thomas L. Jennings of New York as assistant
secretary. Delegates from five states were present. The gathering was not
large, but it brought together some able men; moreover, the meeting had
some distinguished visitors, among them Benjamin Lundy, William Lloyd
Garrison, Rev. S.S. Jocelyn of New Haven, and Arthur Tappan of New
York.
The very first motion of the convention resolved "That a committee be
appointed to institute an inquiry into the condition of the free people of
color throughout the United States, and report their views upon the subject
at a subsequent meeting." As a result of its work this committee
recommended that the work of organizations interested in settlement in
Canada be continued; that the free people of color be annually called to
assemble by delegation; and it submitted "the necessity of deliberate
reflection on the dissolute, intemperate, and ignorant condition of a large
portion of the colored population of the United States." "And, lastly, your
Committee view with unfeigned regret, and respectfully submit to the

wisdom of this Convention, the operations and misrepresentations of the
American Colonization Society in these United States.... We feel sorrowful
to see such an immense and wanton waste of lives and property, not
doubting the benevolent feelings of some individuals engaged in that cause.
But we can not for a moment doubt but that the cause of many of our
unconstitutional, unchristian, and unheard-of sufferings emanate from that
unhallowed source; and we would call on Christians of every denomination
firmly to resist it." The report was unanimously received and adopted.
Jocelyn, Tappan, and Garrison addressed the convention with reference
to a proposed industrial college in New Haven, toward the $20,000 expense
of which one individual (Tappan himself) had subscribed $1000 with the
understanding that the remaining $19,000 be raised within a year; and the
convention approved the project, provided the Negroes had a majority of at
least one on the board of trustees. An illuminating address to the public
called attention to the progress of emancipation abroad, to the fact that it
was American persecution that led to the calling of the convention, and that
it was this also that first induced some members of the race to seek an
asylum in Canada, where already there were two hundred log houses, and
five hundred acres under cultivation.
In 1832 eight states were represented by a total of thirty delegates. By
this time we learn that a total of eight hundred acres had been secured in
Canada, that two thousand Negroes had gone thither, but that considerable
hostility had been manifested on the part of the Canadians. Hesitant, the
convention appointed an agent to investigate the situation. It expressed
itself as strongly opposed to any national aid to the American Colonization
Society and urged the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia—all
of which activity, it is well to remember, was a year before the American
Anti-Slavery Society was organized.
In 1833 there were fifty-eight delegates, and Abraham Shadd, now of
Washington, was chosen president. The convention again gave prominence
to the questions of Canada and colonization, and expressed itself with
reference to the new law in Connecticut prohibiting Negroes from other
states from attending schools within the state. The 1834 meeting was held
in New York. Prudence Crandall127 was commended for her stand in behalf
of the race, and July 4 was set apart as a day for prayer and addresses on the
condition of the Negro throughout the country. By this time we hear much

of societies for temperance and moral reform, especially of the so-called
Phoenix Societies "for improvement in general culture—literature,
mechanic arts, and morals." Of these organizations Rev. Christopher Rush,
of the A.M.E. Zion Church, was general president, and among the directors
were Rev. Peter Williams, Boston Crummell, the father of Alexander
Crummell, and Rev. William Paul Quinn, afterwards a well-known bishop
of the A.M.E. Church. The 1835 and 1836 meetings were held in
Philadelphia, and especially were the students of Lane Seminary in
Cincinnati commended for their zeal in the cause of abolition. A committee
was appointed to look into the dissatisfaction of some emigrants to Liberia
and generally to review the work of the Colonization Society.
In the decade 1837-1847 Frederick Douglass was outstanding as a leader,
and other men who were now prominent were Dr. James McCune Smith,
Rev. James W.C. Pennington, Alexander Crummell, William C. Nell, and
Martin R. Delany. These are important names in the history of the period.
These were the men who bore the brunt of the contest in the furious days of
Texas annexation and the Compromise of 1850. About 1853 and 1854 there
was renewed interest in the idea of an industrial college; steps were taken
for the registry of Negro mechanics and artisans who were in search of
employment, and of the names of persons who were willing to give them
work; and there was also a committee on historical records and statistics
that was not only to compile studies in Negro biography but also to reply to
any assaults of note.128
Immediately after the last of the conventions just mentioned, those who
were interested in emigration and had not been able to get a hearing in the
regular convention issued a call for a National Emigration Convention of
Colored Men to take place in Cleveland, Ohio, August 24-26, 1854. The
preliminary announcement said: "No person will be admitted to a seat in the
Convention who would introduce the subject of emigration to the Eastern
Hemisphere—either to Asia, Africa, or Europe—as our object and
determination are to consider our claims to the West Indies, Central and
South America, and the Canadas. This restriction has no reference to
personal preference, or individual enterprise, but to the great question of
national claims to come before the Convention."129 Douglass pronounced
the call "uncalled for, unwise, unfortunate and premature," and his position
led him into a wordy discussion in the press with James M. Whitfield, of

Buffalo, prominent at the time as a writer. Delany explained the call as
follows: "It was a mere policy on the part of the authors of these
documents, to confine their scheme to America (including the West Indies),
whilst they were the leading advocates of the regeneration of Africa, lest
they compromised themselves and their people to the avowed enemies of
their race."130 At the secret sessions, he informs us, Africa was the topic of
greatest interest. In order to account for this position it is important to take
note of the changes that had taken place between 1817 and 1854. When
James Forten and others in Philadelphia in 1817 protested against the
American Colonization Society as the plan of a "gang of slaveholders" to
drive free people from their homes, they had abundant ground for the
feeling. By 1839, however, not only had the personnel of the organization
changed, but, largely through the influence of Garrison, the purpose and
aim had also changed, and not Virginia and Maryland, but New York and
Pennsylvania were now dominant in influence. Colonization had at first
been regarded as a possible solution of the race problem; money was now
given, however, "rather as an aid to the establishment of a model Negro
republic in Africa, whose effort would be to discourage the slave-trade, and
encourage energy and thrift among those free Negroes from the United
States who chose to emigrate, and to give native Africans a demonstration
of the advantages of civilization."131 In view of the changed conditions,
Delany and others who disagreed with Douglass felt that for the good of the
race in the United States the whole matter of emigration might receive
further consideration; at the same time, remembering old discussions, they
did not wish to be put in the light of betrayers of their people. The
Pittsburgh Daily Morning Post of October 18, 1854, sneered at the new plan
as follows: "If Dr. Delany drafted this report it certainly does him much
credit for learning and ability; and can not fail to establish for him a
reputation for vigor and brilliancy of imagination never yet surpassed. It is a
vast conception of impossible birth. The Committee seem to have entirely
overlooked the strength of the 'powers on earth' that would oppose the
Africanization of more than half the Western Hemisphere. We have no
motive in noticing this gorgeous dream of 'the Committee' except to show
its fallacy—its impracticability, in fact, its absurdity. No sensible man,
whatever his color, should be for a moment deceived by such impracticable
theories." However, in spite of all opposition, the Emigration Convention
met. Upon Delany fell the real brunt of the work of the organization. In

1855 Bishop James Theodore Holly was commissioned to Faustin
Soulouque, Emperor of Hayti; and he received in his visit of a month much
official attention with some inducement to emigrate. Delany himself
planned to go to Africa as the head of a "Niger Valley Exploring Party." Of
the misrepresentation and difficulties that he encountered he himself has
best told. He did get to Africa, however, and he had some interesting and
satisfactory interviews with representative chiefs. The Civil War put an end
to his project, he himself accepting a major's commission from President
Lincoln. Through the influence of Holly about two thousand persons went
to Hayti, but not more than a third of these remained. A plan fostered by
Whitfield for a colony in Central America came to naught when this leading
spirit died in San Francisco on his way thither.132

3. Sojourner Truth and Woman Suffrage

With its challenge to the moral consciousness it was but natural that anti-
slavery should soon become allied with temperance, woman suffrage, and
other reform movements that were beginning to appeal to the heart of
America. Especially were representative women quick to see that the
arguments used for their cause were very largely identical with those used
for the Negro. When the woman suffrage movement was launched at
Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and
their co-workers issued a Declaration of Sentiments which like many
similar documents copied the phrasing of the Declaration of Independence.
This said in part: "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations on the part of man towards woman, having in direct object
the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.... He has never permitted
her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.... He has made
her, if married, in the eye of the law civilly dead.... He has denied her the
facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed to
her." It mattered not at the time that male suffrage was by no means
universal, or that amelioration of the condition of woman had already
begun; the movement stated its case clearly and strongly in order that it
might fully be brought to the attention of the American people. In 1850 the
first formal National Woman's Rights Convention assembled in Worcester,
Mass. To this meeting came a young Quaker woman who was already listed
in the cause of temperance. In fact, wherever she went Susan B. Anthony

entered into "causes." She possessed great virtues and abilities, and at the
same time was capable of very great devotion. "She not only sympathized
with the Negro; when an opportunity offered she drank tea with him, to her
own 'unspeakable satisfaction.'"133 Lucy Stone, an Oberlin graduate, was
representative of those who came into the agitation by the anti-slavery path.
Beginning in 1848 to speak as an agent of the Anti-Slavery Society, almost
from the first she began to introduce the matter of woman's rights in her
speeches.
To the second National Woman's Suffrage Convention, held in Akron,
Ohio, in 1852, and presided over by Mrs. Frances D. Gage, came Sojourner
Truth.
The "Libyan Sibyl" was then in the fullness of her powers. She had been
born of slave parents about 1798 in Ulster County, New York. In her later
years she remembered vividly the cold, damp cellar-room in which slept the
slaves of the family to which she belonged, and where she was taught by
her mother to repeat the Lord's Prayer and to trust in God. When in the
course of gradual emancipation she became legally free in 1827, her master
refused to comply with the law and kept her in bondage. She left, but was
pursued and found. Rather than have her go back, a friend paid for her
services for the rest of the year. Then came an evening when, searching for
one of her children who had been stolen and sold, she found herself a
homeless wanderer. A Quaker family gave her lodging for the night.
Subsequently she went to New York City, joined a Methodist church, and
worked hard to improve her condition. Later, having decided to leave New
York for a lecture tour through the East, she made a small bundle of her
belongings and informed a friend that her name was no longer Isabella but
Sojourner. She went on her way, speaking to people wherever she found
them assembled and being entertained in many aristocratic homes. She was
entirely untaught in the schools, but was witty, original, and always
suggestive. By her tact and her gift of song she kept down ridicule, and by
her fervor and faith she won many friends for the anti-slavery cause. As to
her name she said: "And the Lord gave me Sojourner because I was to
travel up an' down the land showin' the people their sins an' bein' a sign
unto them. Afterwards I told the Lord I wanted another name, 'cause
everybody else had two names, an' the Lord gave me Truth, because I was
to declare the truth to the people."

On the second day of the convention in Akron, in a corner, crouched
against the wall, sat this woman of care, her elbows resting on her knees,
and her chin resting upon her broad, hard palms.134 In the intermission she
was employed in selling "The Life of Sojourner Truth." From time to time
came to the presiding officer the request, "Don't let her speak; it will ruin
us. Every newspaper in the land will have our cause mixed with abolition
and niggers, and we shall be utterly denounced." Gradually, however, the
meeting waxed warm. Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and
Universalist preachers had come to hear and discuss the resolutions
presented. One argued the superiority of the male intellect, another the sin
of Eve, and the women, most of whom did not "speak in meeting," were
becoming filled with dismay. Then slowly from her seat in the corner rose
Sojourner Truth, who till now had scarcely lifted her head. Slowly and
solemnly to the front she moved, laid her old bonnet at her feet, and turned
her great, speaking eyes upon the chair. Mrs. Gage, quite equal to the
occasion, stepped forward and announced "Sojourner Truth," and begged
the audience to be silent a few minutes. "The tumult subsided at once, and
every eye was fixed on this almost Amazon form, which stood nearly six
feet high, head erect, and eye piercing the upper air, like one in a dream." At
her first word there was a profound hush. She spoke in deep tones, which,
though not loud, reached every ear in the house, and even the throng at the
doors and windows. To one man who had ridiculed the general helplessness
of woman, her needing to be assisted into carriages and to be given the best
place everywhere, she said, "Nobody eber helped me into carriages, or ober
mud puddles, or gibs me any best place"; and raising herself to her full
height, with a voice pitched like rolling thunder, she asked, "And a'n't I a
woman? Look at me. Look at my arm." And she bared her right arm to the
shoulder, showing her tremendous muscular power. "I have plowed, and
planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me—and a'n't I a
woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man, when I could get
it, and bear de lash as well—and a'n't I a woman? I have borne five chilern
and seen 'em mos' all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with a
mother's grief, none but Jesus heard—and a'n't I a woman?... Dey talks
'bout dis ting in de head—what dis dey call it?" "Intellect," said some one
near. "Dat's it, honey. What's dat got to do with women's rights or niggers'
rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yourn holds a quart, wouldn't ye
be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?" And she pointed

her significant finger and sent a keen glance at the minister who had made
the argument. The cheering was long and loud. "Den dat little man in black
dar, he say women can't have as much rights as man, 'cause Christ wa'n't a
woman. But whar did Christ come from?" Rolling thunder could not have
stilled that crowd as did those deep, wonderful tones as the woman stood
there with her outstretched arms and her eyes of fire. Raising her voice she
repeated, "Whar did Christ come from? From God and a woman. Man had
nothing to do with Him." Turning to another objector, she took up the
defense of Eve. She was pointed and witty, solemn and serious at will, and
at almost every sentence awoke deafening applause; and she ended by
asserting, "If de fust woman God made was strong enough to turn the world
upside down, all alone, dese togedder,"—and she glanced over the audience
—"ought to be able to turn it back and get it right side up again, and now
dey is askin' to do it, de men better let 'em."
"Amid roars of applause," wrote Mrs. Gage, "she returned to her corner,
leaving more than one of us with streaming eyes and hearts beating with
gratitude." Thus, as so frequently happened, Sojourner Truth turned a
difficult situation into splendid victory. She not only made an eloquent plea
for the slave, but placing herself upon the broadest principles of humanity,
she saved the day for woman suffrage as well.
Footnote 121: (return)
Adams: Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery, 93.

Footnote 122: (return)
Freedom's Journal, November 2, 1827, quoted by Walker.

Footnote 123: (return)
Anti-Slavery Picknick, 105-107.

Footnote 124: (return)
They are fully recorded in Garrison's Thoughts on African Colonization.

Footnote 125: (return)
John W. Cromwell: The Early Negro Convention Movement.

Footnote 126: (return)
Ibid., 5.

Footnote 127: (return)
See Chapter X, Section 3.

Footnote 128: (return)
We can not too much emphasize the fact that the leaders of this period were by

no means impractical theorists but men who were scientifically approaching the
social problem of their people. They not only anticipated such ideas as those of
industrial education and of the National Urban League of the present day, but
they also endeavored to lay firmly the foundations of racial self-respect.

Footnote 129: (return)
Official Report of the Niger Valley Exploring Party, by M.R. Delany, Chief
Commissioner to Africa, New York, 1861.

Footnote 130: (return)
Delany, 8.

Footnote 131: (return)
Fox: The American Colonisation Society, 177; also note pp. 12, 120-2.

Footnote 132: (return)
For the progress of all the plans offered to the convention note important letter
written by Holly and given by Cromwell, 20-21.

Footnote 133: (return)
Ida M. Tarbell: "The American Woman: Her First Declaration of Independence,"
American Magazine, February, 1910.

Footnote 134: (return)
Reminiscences of the president, Mrs. Frances D. Gage, cited by Tarbell.

CHAPTER IX
LIBERIA

In a former chapter we have traced the early development of the
American Colonization Society, whose efforts culminated in the founding
of the colony of Liberia. The recent world war, with Africa as its prize,
fixed attention anew upon the little republic. This comparatively small tract
of land, just slightly more than one-three hundredth part of the surface of
Africa, is now of interest and strategic importance not only because (if we
except Abyssinia, which claims slightly different race origin, and Hayti,
which is now really under the government of the United States) it represents
the one distinctively Negro government in the world, but also because it is
the only tract of land on the great West Coast of the continent that has
survived, even through the war, the aggression of great European powers. It
is just at the bend of the shoulder of Africa, and its history is as romantic as
its situation is unique.
Liberia has frequently been referred to as an outstanding example of the
incapacity of the Negro for self-government. Such a judgment is not
necessarily correct. It is indeed an open question if, in view of the nature of
its beginning, the history of the country proves anything one way or the
other with reference to the capacity of the race. The early settlers were
frequently only recently out of bondage, but upon them were thrust all the
problems of maintenance and government, and they brought with them,
moreover, the false ideas of life and work that obtained in the Old South.
Sometimes they suffered from neglect, sometimes from excessive
solicitude; never were they really left alone. In spite of all, however, more
than a score of native tribes have been subdued by only a few thousand
civilized men, the republic has preserved its integrity, and there has been
handed down through the years a tradition of constitutional government.

1. The Place and the People

The resources of Liberia are as yet imperfectly known. There is no
question, however, about the fertility of the interior, or of its capacity when
properly developed. There are no rivers of the first rank, but the longest
streams are about three hundred miles in length, and at convenient distances
apart flow down to a coastline somewhat more than three hundred miles
long. Here in a tract of land only slightly larger than our own state of Ohio
are a civilized population between 30,000 and 100,000 in number, and a
native population estimated at 2,000,000. Of the civilized population the
smaller figure, 30,000, is the more nearly correct if we consider only those
persons who are fully civilized, and this number would be about evenly
divided between Americo-Liberians and natives. Especially in the towns
along the coast, however, there are many people who have received only
some degree of civilization, and most of the households in the larger towns
have several native children living in them. If all such elements are
considered, the total might approach 100,000. The natives in their different
tribes fall into three or four large divisions. In general they follow their
native customs, and the foremost tribes exhibit remarkable intelligence and
skill in industry. Outstanding are the dignified Mandingo, with a
Mohammedan tradition, and the Vai, distinguished for skill in the arts and
with a culture similar to that of the Mandingo. Also easily recognized are
the Kpwessi, skillful in weaving and ironwork; the Kru, intelligent, sea-
faring, and eager for learning; the Grebo, ambitious and aggressive, and in
language connection close to the Kru; the Bassa, with characteristics
somewhat similar to those of the Kru, but in general not quite so ambitious;
the Buzi, wild and highly tattooed; and the cannibalistic Mano. By reason
of numbers if nothing else, Liberia's chief asset for the future consists in her
native population.

2. History

(a) Colonization and Settlement

In pursuance of its plans for the founding of a permanent colony on the
coast of Africa, the American Colonization Society in November, 1817, sent
out two men, Samuel J. Mills and Ebenezer Burgess, who were authorized

to find a suitable place for a settlement. Going by way of England, these
men were cordially received by the officers of the African Institution and
given letters to responsible persons in Sierra Leone. Arriving at the latter
place in March, 1818, they met John Kizell, a native and a man of
influence, who had received some training in America and had returned to
his people, built a house of worship, and become a preacher. Kizell
undertook to accompany them on their journey down the coast and led the
way to Sherbro Island, a place long in disputed territory but since included
within the limits of Sierra Leone. Here the agents were hospitably received;
they fixed upon the island as a permanent site, and in May turned their faces
homeward. Mills died on the voyage in June and was buried at sea; but
Burgess made a favorable report, though the island was afterwards to prove
by no means healthy. The Society was impressed, but efforts might have
languished at this important stage if Monroe, now President, had not found
it possible to bring the resources of the United States Government to assist
in the project. Smuggling, with the accompanying evil of the sale of
"recaptured Africans," had by 1818 become a national disgrace, and on
March 3, 1819, a bill designed to do away with the practice became a law.
This said in part: "The President of the United States is hereby authorized to
make such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for the
safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of the United States,
of all such Negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color as may be so delivered
and brought within their jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or
persons residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for receiving
the Negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color, delivered from on board vessels
seized in the prosecution of the slave-trade by commanders of the United
States armed vessels." For the carrying out of the purpose of this act
$100,000 was appropriated, and Monroe was disposed to construe as
broadly as necessary the powers given him under it. In his message of
December 20, he informed Congress that he had appointed Rev. Samuel
Bacon, of the American Colonization Society, with John Bankson as
assistant, to charter a vessel and take the first group of emigrants to Africa,
the understanding being that he was to go to the place fixed upon by Mills
and Burgess. Thus the National Government and the Colonization Society,
while technically separate, began to work in practical coöperation. The ship
Elizabeth was made ready for the voyage; the Government informed the
Society that it would "receive on board such free blacks recommended by

the Society as might be required for the purpose of the agency"; $33,000
was placed in the hands of Mr. Bacon; Rev. Samuel A. Crozer was
appointed as the Society's official representative; 88 emigrants were
brought together (33 men and 18 women, the rest being children); and on
February 5, 1820, convoyed by the war-sloop Cyane, the expedition set
forth.
An interesting record of the voyage—important for the sidelights it gives
—was left by Daniel Coker, the respected minister of a large Methodist
congregation in Baltimore who was persuaded to accompany the expedition
for the sake of the moral influence that he might be able to exert.135 There
was much bad weather at the start, and it was the icy sea that on February 4
made it impossible to get under way until the next day. On board, moreover,
there was much distrust of the agents in charge, with much questioning of
their motives; nor were matters made better by a fight between one of the
emigrants and the captain of the vessel. It was a restless company, uncertain
as to the future, and dissatisfied and peevish from day to day. Kizell
afterwards remarked that "some would not be governed by white men, and
some would not be governed by black men, and some would not be
governed by mulattoes; but the truth was they did not want to be governed
by anybody." On March 3, however, the ship sighted the Cape Verde Islands
and six days afterwards was anchored at Sierra Leone; and Coker rejoiced
that at last he had seen Africa. Kizell, however, whom the agents had
counted on seeing, was found to be away at Sherbro; accordingly, six days
after their arrival136 they too were making efforts to go on to Sherbro, for
they were allowed at anchor only fifteen days and time was passing rapidly.
Meanwhile Bankson went to find Kizell. Captain Sebor was at first
decidedly unwilling to go further; but his reluctance was at length
overcome; Bacon purchased for $3,000 a British schooner that had formerly
been engaged in the slave-trade; and on March 17 both ship and schooner
got under way for Sherbro. The next day they met Bankson, who informed
them that he had seen Kizell. This man, although he had not heard from
America since the departure of Mills and Burgess, had already erected some
temporary houses against the rainy season. He permitted the newcomers to
stay in his little town until land could be obtained; sent them twelve fowls
and a bushel of rice; but he also, with both dignity and pathos, warned
Bankson that if he and his companions came with Christ in their hearts, it

was well that they had come; if not, it would have been better if they had
stayed in America.
Now followed much fruitless bargaining with the native chiefs, in all of
which Coker regretted that the slave-traders had so ruined the people that it
seemed impossible to make any progress in a "palaver" without the offering
of rum. Meanwhile a report was circulated through the country that a
number of Americans had come and turned Kizell out of his own town and
put some of his people in the hold of their ship. Disaster followed disaster.
The marsh, the bad water, and the malaria played havoc with the colonists,
and all three of the responsible agents died. The few persons who remained
alive made their way back to Sierra Leone.
Thus the first expedition failed. One year later, in March, 1821, a new
company of twenty-one emigrants, in charge of J.B. Winn and Ephraim
Bacon, arrived at Freetown in the brig Nautilus. It had been the
understanding that in return for their passage the members of the first
expedition would clear the way for others; but when the agents of the new
company saw the plight of those who remained alive, they brought all of the
colonists together at Fourah Bay, and Bacon went farther down the coast to
seek a more favorable site. A few persons who did not wish to go to Fourah
Bay remained in Sierra Leone and became British subjects. Bacon found a
promising tract about two hundred and fifty miles down the coast at Cape
Montserado; but the natives were not especially eager to sell, as they did
not wish to break up the slave traffic. Meanwhile Winn and several more of
the colonists died; and Bacon now returned to the United States. The second
expedition had thus proved to be little more successful than the first; but the
future site of Monrovia had at least been suggested.
In November came Dr. Eli Ayres as agent of the Society, and in
December Captain Robert F. Stockton of the Alligator with instructions to
coöperate. These two men explored the coast and on December 11 arrived
at Mesurado Bay. Through the jungle they made their way to a village and
engaged in a palaver with King Peter and five of his associates. The
negotiations were conducted in the presence of an excited crowd and with
imminent danger; but Stockton had great tact and at length, for the
equivalent of $300, he and Ayres purchased the mouth of the Mesurado
River, Cape Montserado, and the land for some distance in the interior.
There was also an understanding (for half a dozen gallons of rum and some

trade-cloth and tobacco) with King George, who "resided on the Cape and
claimed a sort of jurisdiction over the northern district of the peninsula of
Montserado, by virtue of which the settlers were permitted to pass across
the river and commence the laborious task of clearing away the heavy forest
which covered the site of their intended town."137 Then the agent returned
to effect the removal of the colonists from Fourah Bay, leaving a very small
company as a sort of guard on Perseverance (or Providence) Island at the
mouth of the river. Some of the colonists refused to leave, remained, and
thus became British subjects. For those who had remained on the island
there was trouble at once. A small vessel, the prize of an English cruiser,
bound to Sierra Leone with thirty liberated Africans, put into the roads for
water, and had the misfortune to part her cable and come ashore. "The
natives claim to a prescriptive right, which interest never fails to enforce to
its fullest extent, to seize and appropriate the wrecks and cargoes of vessels
stranded, under whatever circumstances, on their coast."138 The vessel in
question drifted to the mainland one mile from the cape, a small distance
below George's town, and the natives proceeded to act in accordance with
tradition. They were fired on by the prize master and forced to desist, and
the captain appealed to the few colonists on the island for assistance. They
brought into play a brass field piece, and two of the natives were killed and
several more wounded. The English officer, his crew, and the captured
Africans escaped, though the small vessel was lost; but the next day the
Deys (the natives), feeling outraged, made another attack, in the course of
which some of them and one of the colonists were killed. In the course of
the operations moreover, through the carelessness of some of the settlers
themselves, fire was communicated to the storehouse and $3000 worth of
property destroyed, though the powder and some of the provisions were
saved. Thus at the very beginning, by accident though it happened, the
shadow of England fell across the young colony, involving it in difficulties
with the natives. When then Ayres returned with the main crowd of settlers
on January 7, 1822—which arrival was the first real landing of settlers on
what is now Liberian soil—he found that the Deys wished to annul the
agreement previously made and to give back the articles paid. He himself
was seized in the course of a palaver, and he was able to arrive at no better
understanding than that the colonists might remain only until they could
make a new purchase elsewhere. Now appeared on the scene Boatswain, a
prominent chief from the interior who sometimes exercised jurisdiction

over the coast tribes and who, hearing that there was trouble in the bay, had
come hither, bringing with him a sufficient following to enforce his decrees.
Through this man shone something of the high moral principle so often to
be observed in responsible African chiefs, and to him Ayres appealed.
Hearing the story he decided in favor of the colonists, saying to Peter,
"Having sold your country and accepted payment, you must take the
consequences. Let the Americans have their land immediately." To the agent
he said, "I promise you protection. If these people give you further
disturbance, send for me; and I swear, if they oblige me to come again to
quiet them, I will do it to purpose, by taking their heads from their
shoulders, as I did old king George's on my last visit to the coast to settle
disputes." Thus on the word of a native chief was the foundation of Liberia
assured.
By the end of April all of the colonists who were willing to move had
been brought from Sierra Leone to their new home. It was now decided to
remove from the low and unhealthy island to the higher land of Cape
Montserado only a few hundred feet away; on April 28 there was a
ceremony of possession and the American flag was raised. The advantages
of the new position were obvious, to the natives as well as the colonists, and
the removal was attended with great excitement. By July the island was
completely abandoned. Meanwhile, however, things had not been going
well. The Deys had been rendered very hostile, and from them there was
constant danger of attack. The rainy season moreover had set in, shelter was
inadequate, supplies were low, and the fever continually claimed its victims.
Ayres at length became discouraged. He proposed that the enterprise be
abandoned and that the settlers return to Sierra Leone, and on June 4 he did
actually leave with a few of them. It was at this juncture that Elijah
Johnson, one of the most heroic of the colonists, stepped forth to fame.
The early life of the man is a blank. In 1789 he was taken to New Jersey.
He received some instruction and studied for the Methodist ministry, took
part in the War of 1812, and eagerly embraced the opportunity to be among
the first to come to the new colony. To the suggestion that the enterprise be
abandoned he replied, "Two years long have I sought a home; here I have
found it; here I remain." To him the great heart of the colonists responded.
Among the natives he was known and respected as a valiant fighter. He
lived until March 23, 1849.

Closely associated with Johnson, his colleague in many an effort and the
pioneer in mission work, was the Baptist minister, Lott Cary, from
Richmond, Va., who also had become one of the first permanent settlers.139
He was a man of most unusual versatility and force of character. He died
November 8, 1828, as the result of a powder explosion that occurred while
he was acting in defense of the colony against the Deys.
July (1822) was a hard month for the settlers. Not only were their
supplies almost exhausted, but they were on a rocky cape and the natives
would not permit any food to be brought to them. On August 8, however,
arrived Jehudi Ashmun, a young man from Vermont who had worked as a
teacher and as the editor of a religious publication for some years before
coming on this mission. He brought with him a company of liberated
Africans and emigrants to the number of fifty-five, and as he did not intend
to remain permanently he had yielded to the entreaty of his wife and
permitted her to accompany him on the voyage. He held no formal
commission from the American Colonization Society, but seeing the
situation he felt that it was his duty to do what he could to relieve the
distress; and he faced difficulties from the very first. On the day after his
arrival his own brig, the Strong, was in danger of being lost; the vessel
parted its cable, and on the following morning broke it again and drifted
until it was landlocked between Cape Montserado and Cape Mount. A small
anchor was found, however, and the brig was again moored, but five miles
from the settlement. The rainy season was now on in full force; there was
no proper place for the storing of provisions; and even with the newcomers
it soon developed that there were in the colony only thirty-five men capable
of bearing arms, so great had been the number of deaths from the fever.
Sometimes almost all of these were sick; on September 10 only two were in
condition for any kind of service. Ashmun tried to make terms with the
native chiefs, but their malignity was only partially concealed. His wife
languished before his eyes and died September 15, just five weeks after her
arrival. He himself was incapacitated for several months, nor at the height
of his illness was he made better by the ministrations of a French charlatan.
He never really recovered from the great inroads made upon his strength at
this time.
As a protection from sudden attack a clearing around the settlement was
made. Defenses had to be erected without tools, and so great was the
anxiety that throughout the months of September and October a nightly

watch of twenty men was kept. On Sunday, November 10, the report was
circulated that the Deys were crossing the Mesurado River, and at night it
became known that seven or eight hundred were on the peninsula only half
a mile to the west. The attack came at early dawn on the 11th and the
colonists might have been annihilated if they had not brought a field-piece
into play. When this was turned against the natives advancing in compact
array, it literally tore through masses of living flesh until scores of men
were killed. Even so the Deys might have won the engagement if they had
not stopped too soon to gather plunder. As it was, they were forced to
retreat. Of the settlers three men and one woman were killed, two men and
two women injured, and several children taken captive, though these were
afterwards returned. At this time the colonists suffered greatly from the lack
of any supplies for the treatment of wounds. Only medicines for the fever
were on hand, and in the hot climate those whose flesh had been torn by
bullets suffered terribly. In this first encounter, as often in these early years,
the real burden of conflict fell upon Cary and Johnson. After the battle these
men found that they had on hand ammunition sufficient for only one hour's
defense. All were placed on a special allowance of provisions and
November 23 was observed as a day of prayer. A passing vessel furnished
additional supplies and happily delayed for some days the inevitable attack.
This came from two sides very early in the morning of December 2. There
was a desperate battle. Three bullets passed through Ashmun's clothes, one
of the gunners was killed, and repeated attacks were resisted only with the
most dogged determination. An accident, or, as the colonists regarded it, a
miracle, saved them from destruction. A guard, hearing a noise, discharged
a large gun and several muskets. The schooner Prince Regent was passing,
with Major Laing, Midshipman Gordon, and eleven specially trained men
on board. The officers, hearing the sound of guns, came ashore to see what
was the trouble. Major Laing offered assistance if ground was given for the
erection of a British flag, and generally attempted to bring about an
adjustment of difficulties on the basis of submitting these to the governor of
Sierra Leone. To these propositions Elijah Johnson replied, "We want no
flagstaff put up here that it will cost more to get down than it will to whip
the natives." However, Gordon and the men under him were left behind for
the protection of the colony until further help could arrive. Within one
month he and seven of the eleven were dead. He himself had found a ready
place in the hearts of the settlers, and to him and his men Liberia owes

much. They came in a needy hour and gave their lives for the cause of
freedom.
An American steamer passing in December, 1822, gave some temporary
relief. On March 31, 1823, the Cyane, with Capt. R.T. Spence in charge,
arrived from America with supplies. As many members of his crew became
ill after only a few days, Spence soon deemed it advisable to leave. His
chief clerk, however, Richard Seaton, heroically volunteered to help with
the work, remained behind, and died after only three months. On May 24
came the Oswego with sixty-one new colonists and Dr. Ayres, who, already
the Society's agent, now returned with the additional authority of
Government agent and surgeon. He made a survey and attempted a new
allotment of land, only to find that the colony was soon in ferment, because
some of those who possessed the best holdings or who had already made
the beginnings of homes, were now required to give these up. There was so
much rebellion that in December Ayres again deemed it advisable to leave.
The year 1823 was in fact chiefly noteworthy for the misunderstandings
that arose between the colonists and Ashmun. This man had been placed in
a most embarrassing situation by the arrival of Dr. Ayres.140 He not only
found himself superseded in the government, but had the additional
misfortune to learn that his drafts had been dishonored and that no
provision had been made to remunerate him for his past services or provide
for his present needs. Finding his services undervalued, and even the
confidence of the Society withheld, he was naturally indignant, though his
attachment to the cause remained steadfast. Seeing the authorized agent
leaving the colony, and the settlers themselves in a state of insubordination,
with no formal authority behind him he yet resolved to forget his own
wrongs and to do what he could to save from destruction that for which he
had already suffered so much. He was young and perhaps not always as
tactful as he might have been. On the other hand, the colonists had not yet
learned fully to appreciate the real greatness of the man with whom they
were dealing. As for the Society at home, not even so much can be said. The
real reason for the withholding of confidence from Ashmun was that many
of the members objected to his persistent attacks on the slave-trade.
By the regulations that governed the colony at the time, each man who
received rations was required to contribute to the general welfare two days
of labor a week. Early in December twelve men cast off all restraint, and on
the 13th Ashmun published a notice in which he said: "There are in the

colony more than a dozen healthy persons who will receive no more
provisions out of the public store until they earn them." On the 19th, in
accordance with this notice, the provisions of the recalcitrants were
stopped. The next morning, however, the men went to the storehouse, and
while provisions were being issued, each seized a portion and went to his
home. Ashmun now issued a circular, reminding the colonists of all of their
struggles together and generally pointing out to them how such a breach of
discipline struck at the very heart of the settlement. The colonists rallied to
his support and the twelve men returned to duty. The trouble, however, was
not yet over. On March 19, 1824, Ashmun found it necessary to order a cut
in provisions. He had previously declared to the Board that in his opinion
the evil was "incurable by any of the remedies which fall within the existing
provisions"; and counter remonstrances had been sent by the colonists, who
charged him with oppression, neglect of duty, and the seizure of public
property. He now, seeing that his latest order was especially unpopular,
prepared new despatches, on March 22 reviewed the whole course of his
conduct in a strong and lengthy address, and by the last of the month had
left the colony.
Meanwhile the Society, having learned that things were not going well
with the colony, had appointed its secretary, Rev. R.R. Gurley, to investigate
conditions. Gurley met Ashmun at the Cape Verde Islands and urgently
requested that he return to Monrovia.141 This Ashmun was not unwilling to
do, as he desired the fullest possible investigation into his conduct. Gurley
was in Liberia from August 13 to August 22, 1824, only; but from the time
of his visit conditions improved. Ashmun was fully vindicated and
remained for four years more until his strength was all but spent. There was
adopted what was known as the Gurley Constitution. According to this the
agent in charge was to have supreme charge and preside at all public
meetings. He was to be assisted, however, by eleven officers annually
chosen, the most important of whom he was to appoint on nomination by
the colonists. Among these were a vice-agent, two councilors, two justices
of the peace, and two constables. There was to be a guard of twelve
privates, two corporals, and one sergeant.
For a long time it was the custom of the American Colonization Society
to send out two main shipments of settlers a year, one in the spring and one
in the fall. On February 13, 1824, arrived a little more than a hundred
emigrants, mainly from Petersburg, Va. These people were unusually

intelligent and industrious and received a hearty welcome. Within a month
practically all of them were sick with the fever. On this occasion, as on
many others, Lott Cary served as physician, and so successful was he that
only three of the sufferers died. Another company of unusual interest was
that which arrived early in 1826. It brought along a printer, a press with the
necessary supplies, and books sent by friends in Boston. Unfortunately the
printer was soon disabled by the fever.
Sickness, however, and wars with the natives were not the only
handicaps that engaged the attention of the colony in these years. "At this
period the slave-trade was carried on extensively within sight of Monrovia.
Fifteen vessels were engaged in it at the same time, almost under the guns
of the settlement; and in July of this year a contract was existing for eight
hundred slaves to be furnished, in the short space of four months, within
eight miles of the cape. Four hundred of these were to be purchased for two
American traders."142 Ashmun attacked the Spaniards engaged in the traffic,
and labored generally to break up slave factories. On one occasion he
received as many as one hundred and sixteen slaves into the colony as
freemen. He also adopted an attitude of justice toward the native Krus. Of
special importance was the attack on Trade Town, a stronghold of French
and Spanish traders about one hundred miles below Monrovia. Here there
were not less than three large factories. On the day of the battle, April 10,
there were three hundred and fifty natives on shore under the direction of
the traders, but the colonists had the assistance of some American vessels,
and a Liberian officer, Captain Barbour, was of outstanding courage and
ability. The town was fired after eighty slaves had been surrendered. The
flames reached the ammunition of the enemy and over two hundred and
fifty casks of gunpowder exploded. By July, however, the traders had built a
battery at Trade Town and were prepared to give more trouble. All the same
a severe blow had been dealt to their work.
In his report rendered at the close of 1825 Ashmun showed that the
settlers were living in neatness and comfort; two chapels had been built, and
the militia was well organized, equipped, and disciplined. The need of some
place for the temporary housing of immigrants having more and more
impressed itself upon the colony, before the end of 1826 a "receptacle"
capable of holding one hundred and fifty persons was erected. Ashmun
himself served on until 1828, by which time his strength was completely
spent. He sailed for America early in the summer and succeeded in reaching

New Haven, only to die after a few weeks. No man had given more for the
founding of Liberia. The principal street in Monrovia is named after him.
Aside from wars with the natives, the most noteworthy being the Dey-
Gola war of 1832, the most important feature of Liberian history in the
decade 1828-1838 was the development along the coast of other settlements
than Monrovia. These were largely the outgrowth of the activity of local
branch organizations of the American Colonization Society, and they were
originally supposed to have the oversight of the central organization and of
the colony of Monrovia. The circumstances under which they were
founded, however, gave them something of a feeling of independence
which did much to influence their history. Thus arose, about seventy-five
miles farther down the coast, under the auspices especially of the New York
and Pennsylvania societies, the Grand Bassa settlements at the mouth of the
St. John's River, the town Edina being outstanding. Nearly a hundred miles
farther south, at the mouth of the Sino River, another colony developed as
its most important town Greenville; and as most of the settlers in this
vicinity came from Mississippi, their province became known as
Mississippi in Africa. A hundred miles farther, on Cape Palmas, just about
twenty miles from the Cavalla River marking the boundary of the French
possessions, developed the town of Harper in what became known as
Maryland in Africa. This colony was even more aloof than others from the
parent settlement of the American Colonization Society. When the first
colonists arrived at Monrovia in 1831, they were not very cordially
received, there being trouble about the allotment of land. They waited for
some months for reënforcements and then sailed down the coast to the
vicinity of the Cavalla River, where they secured land for their future home
and where their distance from the other colonists from America made it all
the more easy for them to cultivate their tradition of independence.143 These
four ports are now popularly known as Monrovia, Grand Bassa, Sino, and
Cape Palmas; and to them for general prominence might now be added
Cape Mount, about fifty miles from Monrovia higher up the coast and just a
few miles from the Mano River, which now marks the boundary between
Sierra Leone and Liberia. In 1838, on a constitution drawn up by Professor
Greenleaf, of Harvard College, was organized the "Commonwealth of
Liberia," the government of which was vested in a Board of Directors
composed of delegates from the state societies, and which included all the
settlements except Maryland. This remote colony, whose seaport is Cape

Palmas, did not join with the others until 1857, ten years after Liberia had
become an independent republic. When a special company of settlers
arrived from Baltimore and formally occupied Cape Palmas (1834), Dr.
James Hall was governor and he served in this capacity until 1836, when
failing health forced him to return to America. He was succeeded by John
B. Russwurm, a young Negro who had come to Liberia in 1829 for the
purpose of superintending the system of education. The country, however,
was not yet ready for the kind of work he wanted to do, and in course of
time he went into politics. He served very efficiently as Governor of
Maryland from 1836 to 1851, especially exerting himself to standardize the
currency and to stabilize the revenues. Five years after his death Maryland
suffered greatly from an attack by the Greboes, twenty-six colonists being
killed. An appeal to Monrovia for help led to the sending of a company of
men and later to the incorporation of the colony in the Republic.
Of the events of the period special interest attaches to the murder of
I.F.C. Finley, Governor of Mississippi in Africa, to whose father, Rev.
Robert Finley, the organization of the American Colonization Society had
been very largely due. In September, 1838, Governor Finley left his colony
to go to Monrovia on business, and making a landing at Bassa Cove, he was
robbed and killed by the Krus. This unfortunate murder led to a bitter
conflict between the settlers in the vicinity and the natives. This is
sometimes known as the Fish War (from being waged around Fishpoint)
and did not really cease for a year.

(b) The Commonwealth of Liberia

The first governor of the newly formed Commonwealth was Thomas H.
Buchanan, a man of singular energy who represented the New York and
Pennsylvania societies and who had come in 1836 especially to take charge
of the Grand Bassa settlements. Becoming governor in 1838, he found it
necessary to proceed vigorously against the slave dealers at Trade Town. He
was also victorious in 1840 in a contest with the Gola tribe led by Chief
Gatumba. The Golas had defeated the Dey tribe so severely that a mere
remnant of the latter had taken refuge with the colonists at Millsburg, a
station a few miles up the St. Paul's River. Thus, as happened more than
once, a tribal war in time involved the very existence of the new American
colonies. Governor Buchanan's victory greatly increased his prestige and

made it possible for him to negotiate more and more favorable treaties with
the natives. A contest of different sort was that with a Methodist missionary,
John Seyes, who held that all goods used by missionaries, including those
sold to the natives, should be admitted free of duty. The governor contended
that such privilege should be extended only to goods intended for the
personal use of missionaries; and the Colonization Society stood behind
him in this opinion. As early as 1840 moreover some shadow of future
events was cast by trouble made by English traders on the Mano River, the
Sierra Leone boundary. Buchanan sent an agent to England to represent him
in an inquiry into the matter; but in the midst of his vigorous work he died
in 1841. He was the last white man formally under any auspices at the head
of Liberian affairs. Happily his period of service had given opportunity and
training to an efficient helper, upon whom now the burden fell and of whom
it is hardly too much to say that he is the foremost figure in Liberian
history.
Joseph Jenkin Roberts was a mulatto born in Virginia in 1809. At the age
of twenty, with his widowed mother and younger brothers, he went to
Liberia and engaged in trade. In course of time he proved to be a man of
unusual tact and graciousness of manner, moving with ease among people
of widely different rank. His abilities soon demanded recognition, and he
was at the head of the force that defeated Gatumba. As governor he realized
the need of cultivating more far-reaching diplomacy than the
Commonwealth had yet known. He had the coöperation of the Maryland
governor, Russwurm, in such a matter as that of uniform customs duties;
and he visited the United States, where he made a very good impression. He
soon understood that he had to reckon primarily with the English and the
French. England had indeed assumed an attitude of opposition to the slave-
trade; but her traders did not scruple to sell rum to slave dealers, and
especially were they interested in the palm oil of Liberia. When the
Commonwealth sought to impose customs duties, England took the position
that as Liberia was not an independent government, she had no right to do
so; and the English attitude had some show of strength from the fact that the
American Colonization Society, an outside organization, had a veto power
over whatever Liberia might do. When in 1845 the Liberian Government
seized the Little Ben, an English trading vessel whose captain acted in
defiance of the revenue laws, the British in turn seized the John Seyes,
belonging to a Liberian named Benson, and sold the vessel for £8000.

Liberia appealed to the United States; but the Oregon boundary question as
well as slavery had given the American Government problems enough at
home; and the Secretary of State, Edward Everett, finally replied to Lord
Aberdeen (1845) that America was not "presuming to settle differences
arising between Liberian and British subjects, the Liberians being
responsible for their own acts." The Colonization Society, powerless to act
except through its own government, in January, 1846, resolved that "the
time had arrived when it was expedient for the people of the
Commonwealth of Liberia to take into their own hands the whole work of
self-government including the management of all their foreign relations."
Forced to act for herself Liberia called a constitutional convention and on
July 26, 1847, issued a Declaration of Independence and adopted the
Constitution of the Liberian Republic. In October, Joseph Jenkin Roberts,
Governor of the Commonwealth, was elected the first President of the
Republic.
It may well be questioned if by 1847 Liberia had developed sufficiently
internally to be able to assume the duties and responsibilities of an
independent power. There were at the time not more than 4,500 civilized
people of American origin in the country; these were largely illiterate and
scattered along a coastline more than three hundred miles in length. It is not
to be supposed, however, that this consummation had been attained without
much yearning and heart-beat and high spiritual fervor. There was
something pathetic in the effort of this small company, most of whose
members had never seen Africa but for the sake of their race had made their
way back to the fatherland. The new seal of the Republic bore the motto:
THE LOVE OF LIBERTY BROUGHT US HERE. The flag, modeled on
that of the United States, had six red and five white stripes for the eleven
signers of the Declaration of Independence, and in the upper corner next to
the staff a lone white star in a field of blue. The Declaration itself said in
part:

We, the people of the Republic of Liberia, were originally
inhabitants of the United States of North America.
In some parts of that country we were debarred by law
from all the rights and privileges of men; in other parts
public sentiment, more powerful than law, frowned us down.
We were everywhere shut out from all civil office.

We were excluded from all participation in the
government.
We were taxed without our consent.
We were compelled to contribute to the resources of a
country which gave us no protection.
We were made a separate and distinct class, and against us
every avenue of improvement was effectually closed.
Strangers from all lands of a color different from ours were
preferred before us.
We uttered our complaints, but they were unattended to,
or met only by alleging the peculiar institution of the
country.
All hope of a favorable change in our country was thus
wholly extinguished in our bosom, and we looked with
anxiety abroad for some asylum from the deep degradation.
The Western coast of Africa was the place selected by
American benevolence and philanthropy for our future
home. Removed beyond those influences which depressed
us in our native land, it was hoped we would be enabled to
enjoy those rights and privileges, and exercise and improve
those faculties, which the God of nature had given us in
common with the rest of mankind.

(c) The Republic of Liberia

With the adoption of its constitution the Republic of Liberia formally
asked to be considered in the family of nations; and since 1847 the history
of the country has naturally been very largely that of international relations.
In fact, preoccupation with the questions raised by powerful neighbors has
been at least one strong reason for the comparatively slow internal
development of the country. The Republic was officially recognized by
England in 1848, by France in 1852, but on account of slavery not by the
United States until 1862. Continuously there has been an observance of the
forms of order, and only one president has been deposed. For a long time
the presidential term was two years in length; but by an act of 1907 it was
lengthened to four years. From time to time there have been two political
parties, but not always has such a division been emphasized.

It is well to pause and note exactly what was the task set before the little
country. A company of American Negroes suddenly found themselves
placed on an unhealthy and uncultivated coast which was thenceforth to be
their home. If we compare them with the Pilgrim Fathers, we find that as
the Pilgrims had to subdue the Indians, so they had to hold their own
against a score of aggressive tribes. The Pilgrims had the advantage of a
thousand years of culture and experience in government; the Negroes, only
recently out of bondage, had been deprived of any opportunity for
improvement whatsoever. Not only, however, did they have to contend
against native tribes and labor to improve their own shortcomings; on every
hand they had to meet the designs of nations supposedly more enlightened
and Christian. On the coast Spanish traders defied international law; on one
side the English, and on the other the French, from the beginning showed a
tendency toward arrogance and encroachment. To crown the difficulty, the
American Government, under whose auspices the colony had largely been
founded, became more and more halfhearted in its efforts for protection and
at length abandoned the enterprise altogether. It did not cease, however, to
regard the colony as the dumping-ground of its own troubles, and whenever
a vessel with slaves from the Congo was captured on the high seas, it did
not hesitate to take these people to the Liberian coast and leave them there,
nearly dead though they might be from exposure or cramping. It is well for
one to remember such facts as these before he is quick to belittle or
criticize. To the credit of the "Congo men" be it said that from the first they
labored to make themselves a quiet and industrious element in the body
politic.
The early administrations of President Roberts (four terms, 1848-1855)
were mainly devoted to the quelling of the native tribes that continued to
give trouble and to the cultivating of friendly relations with foreign powers.
Soon after his inauguration Roberts made a visit to England, the power
from which there was most to fear; and on this occasion as on several others
England varied her arrogance with a rather excessive friendliness toward
the little republic. She presented to Roberts the Lark, a ship with four guns,
and sent the President home on a war-vessel. Some years afteryards, when
the Lark was out of repair, England sent instead a schooner, the Quail.
Roberts made a second visit to England in 1852 to adjust disputes with
traders on the western boundary. He also visited France, and Louis
Napoleon, not to be outdone by England, presented to him a vessel, the

Hirondelle, and also guns and uniforms for his soldiers. In general the
administrations of Roberts (we might better say his first series of
administrations, for he was later to be called again to office) made a period
of constructive statesmanship and solid development, and not a little of the
respect that the young republic won was due to the personal influence of its
first president. Roberts, however, happened to be very fair, and generally
successful though his administrations were, the desire on the part of the
people that the highest office in the country be held by a black man seems
to have been a determining factor in the choice of his successor. There was
an interesting campaign toward the close of his last term. "There were about
this time two political parties in the country—the old Republicans and the
'True Liberians,' a party which had been formed in opposition to Roberts's
foreign policies. But during the canvass the platform of this new party lost
ground; the result was in favor of the Republican candidate."144
Stephen Allen Benson (four terms, 1856-1863) was forced to meet in one
way or another almost all of the difficulties that have since played a part in
the life of the Liberian people. He had come to the country in 1822 at the
age of six and had developed into a practical and efficient merchant. To his
high office he brought the same principles of sobriety and good sense that
had characterized him in business. On February 28, 1857, the independent
colony of Maryland formally became a part of the republic. This action
followed immediately upon the struggle with the Greboes in the vicinity of
Cape Palmas in which assistance was rendered by the Liberians under Ex-
President Roberts. In 1858 an incident that threatened complications with
France but that was soon happily closed arose from the fact that a French
vessel which sought to carry away some Kru laborers to the West Indies
was attacked by these men when they had reason to fear that they might be
sold into slavery and not have to work simply along the coast, as they at
first supposed. The ship was seized and all but one of the crew, the
physician, were killed. Trouble meanwhile continued with British
smugglers in the West, and to this whole matter we shall have to give
further and special attention. In 1858 and a year or two thereafter the
numerous arrivals from America, especially of Congo men captured on the
high seas, were such as to present a serious social problem. Flagrant
violation by the South of the laws against the slave-trade led to the seizure
by the United States Government of many Africans. Hundreds of these
people were detained at a time at such a port as Key West. The Government

then adopted the policy of ordering commanders who seized slave-ships at
sea to land the Africans directly upon the coast of Liberia without first
bringing them to America, and appropriated $250,000 for the removal and
care of those at Key West. The suffering of many of these people is one of
the most tragic stories in the history of slavery. To Liberia came at one time
619, at another 867, and within two months as many as 4000. There was
very naturally consternation on the part of the people at this sudden
immigration, especially as many of the Africans arrived cramped or
paralyzed or otherwise ill from the conditions under which they had been
forced to travel. President Benson stated the problem to the American
Government; the United States sent some money to Liberia, the people of
the Republic helped in every way they could, and the whole situation was
finally adjusted without any permanently bad effects, though it is well for
students to remember just what Liberia had to face at this time. Important
toward the close of Benson's terms was the completion of the building of
the Liberia College, of which Joseph Jenkin Roberts became the first
president.
The administrations of Daniel Bashiel Warner (two terms, 1864-1867)
and the earlier one of James Spriggs Payne (1868-1869) were
comparatively uneventful. Both of these men were Republicans, but Warner
represented something of the shifting of political parties at the time. At first
a Republican, he went over to the Whig party devoted to the policy of
preserving Liberia from white invasion. Moved to distrust of English
merchants, who delighted in defrauding the little republic, he established an
important Ports-of-Entry Law in 1865, which it is hardly necessary to say
was very unpopular with the foreigners. Commerce was restricted to six
ports and a circle six miles in diameter around each port. On account of the
Civil War and the hopes that emancipation held out to the Negroes in the
United States, immigration from America ceased rapidly; but a company of
346 came from Barbadoes at this time. The Liberian Government assisted
these people with $4000, set apart for each man an allotment of twenty-five
rather than the customary ten acres; the Colonization Society appropriated
$10,000, and after a pleasant voyage of thirty-three days they arrived
without the loss of a single life. In the company was a little boy, Arthur
Barclay, who was later to be known as the President of the Republic. At the
semi-centennial of the American Colonization Society held in Washington
in January, 1867, it was shown that the Society and its auxiliaries had been

directly responsible for the sending of more than 12,000 persons to Africa.
Of these 4541 had been born free, 344 had purchased their freedom, 5957
had been emancipated to go to Africa, and 1227 had been settled by the
Maryland Society. In addition, 5722 captured Africans had been sent to
Liberia. The need of adequate study of the interior having more and more
impressed itself, Benjamin Anderson, an adventurous explorer, assisted
with funds by a citizen of New York, in 1869 studied the country for two
hundred miles from the coast. He found the land constantly rising, and
made his way to Musardu, the chief city of the western Mandingoes. He
summed up his work in his Narrative of a Journey to Musardo and made
another journey of exploration in 1874.
Edward James Roye (1870-October 26, 1871), a Whig whose party was
formed out of the elements of the old True Liberian party, attracts attention
by reason of a notorious British loan to which further reference must be
made. Of the whole amount of £100,000 sums were wasted or
misappropriated until it has been estimated that the country really reaped
the benefit of little more than a quarter of the whole amount. President
Roye added to other difficulties by his seizure of a bank building belonging
to an Industrial Society of the St. Paul's River settlements, and by
attempting by proclamation to lengthen his term of office. Twice a
constitutional amendment for lengthening the presidential term from two
years to four had been considered and voted down. Roye contested the last
vote, insisted that his term ran to January, 1874, and issued a proclamation
forbidding the coming biennial election. He was deposed, his house sacked,
some of his cabinet officers tried before a court of impeachment,145 and he
himself was drowned as he was pursued while attempting to escape to a
British ship in the harbor. A committee of three was appointed to govern the
country until a new election could be held; and in this hour of storm and
stress the people turned once more to the guidance of their old leader,
Joseph J. Roberts (two terms, 1872-1875). His efforts were mainly devoted
to restoring order and confidence, though there was a new war with the
Greboes to be waged.146 He was succeeded by another trusted leader, James
S. Payne (1876-1877), whose second administration was as devoid as the
first of striking incident. In fact, the whole generation succeeding the loan
of 1871 was a period of depression. The country not only suffered
financially, but faith in it was shaken both at home and abroad. Coffee
grown in Liberia fell as that produced at Brazil grew in favor, the farmer

witnessing a drop in value from 24 to 4 cents a pound. Farms were
abandoned, immigration from the United States ceased, and the country
entered upon a period of stagnation from which it has not yet fully
recovered.
Within just a few years after 1871, however, conditions in the United
States led to an interesting revival of the whole idea of colonization, and to
noteworthy effort on the part of the Negroes themselves to better their
condition. The withdrawal of Federal troops from the South, and all the
evils of the aftermath of reconstruction, led to such a terrorizing of the
Negroes and such a denial of civil rights that there set in the movement that
culminated in the great exodus from the South in 1879. The movement
extended all the way from North Carolina to Louisiana and Arkansas.
Insofar as it led to migration to Kansas and other states in the West, it
belongs to American history. However, there was also interest in going to
Africa. Applications by the thousands poured in upon the American
Colonization Society, and one organization in Arkansas sent hundreds of its
members to seek the help of the New York State Colonization Society. In all
such endeavor Negro Baptists and Methodists joined hands, and especially
prominent was Bishop H.M. Turner, of the African Methodist Episcopal
Church. By 1877 there was organized in South Carolina the Liberian
Exodus and Joint Stock Company; in North Carolina there was the
Freedmen's Emigration Aid Society; and there were similar organizations in
other states. The South Carolina organization had the threefold purpose of
emigration, missionary activity, and commercial enterprise, and to these
ends it purchased a vessel, the Azor, at a cost of $7000. The white people of
Charleston unfortunately embarrassed the enterprise in every possible way,
among other things insisting when the Azor was ready to sail that it was not
seaworthy and needed a new copper bottom (to cost $2000). The vessel at
length made one or two trips, however, on one voyage carrying as many as
274 emigrants. It was then stolen and sold in Liverpool, and one gets an
interesting sidelight on Southern conditions in the period when he knows
that even the United States Circuit Court in South Carolina refused to
entertain the suit brought by the Negroes.
In the administration of Anthony W. Gardiner (three terms, 1878-1883)
difficulties with England and Germany reached a crisis. Territory in the
northwest was seized; the British made a formal show of force at Monrovia;
and the looting of a German vessel along the Kru Coast and personal

indignities inflicted by the natives upon the shipwrecked Germans, led to
the bombardment of Nana Kru by a German warship and the presentation at
Monrovia of a claim for damages, payment of which was forced by the
threat of the bombardment of the capital. To the Liberian people the outlook
was seldom darker than in this period of calamities. President Gardiner,
very ill, resigned office in January of his last year of service, being
succeeded by the vice-president, Alfred F. Russell. More and more was
pressure brought to bear upon Liberian officials for the granting of
monopolies and concessions, especially to Englishmen; and in his message
of 1883 President Russell said, "Recent events admonish us as to the
serious responsibility of claims held against us by foreigners, and we cannot
tell what complications may arise." In the midst of all this, however, Russell
did not forget the natives and the need of guarding them against liquor and
exploitation.
Hilary Richard Wright Johnson (four terms, 1884-1891), the next
president, was a son of the distinguished Elijah Johnson and the first man
born in Liberia who had risen to the highest place in the republic. Whigs
and Republicans united in his election. Much of his time had necessarily to
be given to complications arising from the loan of 1871; but the western
boundary was adjusted (with great loss) with Great Britain at the Mano
River, though new difficulties arose with the French, who were pressing
their claim to territory as far as the Cavalla River. In the course of the last
term of President Johnson there was an interesting grant (by act approved
January 21, 1890) to F.F. Whittekin, of Pennsylvania, of the right to
"construct, maintain, and operate a system of railroads, telegraph and
telephone lines." Whittekin bought up in England stock to the value of half
a million dollars, but died on the way to Liberia to fulfil his contract. His
nephew, F.F. Whittekin, asked for an extension of time, which was granted,
but after a while the whole project languished.147
Joseph James Cheeseman (1892-November 15, 1896) was a Whig. He
conducted what was known as the third Grebo War and labored especially
for a sound currency. He was a man of unusual ability and his devotion to
his task undoubtedly contributed toward his death in office near the middle
of his third term. As up to this time there had been no internal improvement
and little agricultural or industrial development in the country, O.F. Cook,
the agent of the New York State Colonization Society, in 1894 signified to
the legislature a desire to establish a station where experiments could be

made as to the best means of introducing, receiving, and propagating beasts
of burden, commercial plants, etc. His request was approved and one
thousand acres of land granted for the purpose by act of January 20, 1894.
Results, however, were neither permanent nor far-reaching. In fact, by the
close of the century immigration had practically ceased and the activities of
the American Colonization Society had also ceased, many of the state
organizations having gone out of existence. In 1893 Julius C. Stevens, of
Goldsboro, N.C., went to Liberia and served for a nominal salary as agent
of the American Colonization Society, becoming also a teacher in the
Liberia College and in time Commissioner of Education, in connection with
which post he edited his Liberian School Reader; but he died in 1903.148
William D. Coleman as vice-president finished the incomplete term of
President Cheeseman (to the end of 1897) and later was elected for two
terms in his own right. In the course of his last administration, however, his
interior policy became very unpopular, as he was thought to be harsh in his
dealing with the natives, and he resigned in December, 1900. As there was
at the time no vice-president, he was succeeded by the Secretary of State,
Garretson W. Gibson, a man of scholarly attainments, who was afterwards
elected for a whole term (1902-1903). The feature of this term was the
discussion that arose over the proposal to grant a concession to an English
concern known as the West African Gold Concessions, Ltd. This offered to
the legislators a bonus of £1500, and for this bribe it asked for the sole right
to prospect for and obtain gold, precious stones, and all other minerals over
more than half of Liberia. Specifically it asked for the right to acquire
freehold land and to take up leases for eighty years, in blocks of from ten to
a thousand acres; to import all mining machinery and all other things
necessary free of duty; to establish banks in connection with the mining
enterprises, these to have the power to issue notes; to construct telegraphs
and telephones; to organize auxiliary syndicates; and to establish its own
police. It would seem that English impudence could hardly go further,
though time was to prove that there were still other things to be borne. The
proposal was indignantly rejected.
Arthur Barclay (1904-1911) had already served in three cabinet positions
before coming to the presidency; he had also been a professor in the Liberia
College and for some years had been known as the leader of the bar in
Monrovia. It was near the close of his second term that the president's term
of office was lengthened from two to four years, and he was the first

incumbent to serve for the longer period. In his first inaugural address
President Barclay emphasized the need of developing the resources of the
hinterland and of attaching the native tribes to the interests of the state. In
his foreign policy he was generally enlightened and broad-minded, but he
had to deal with the arrogance of England. In 1906 a new British loan was
negotiated. This also was for £100,000, more than two-thirds of which
amount was to be turned over to the Liberian Development Company, an
English scheme for the development of the interior. The Company was to
work in coöperation with the Liberian Government, and as security for the
loan British officials were to have charge of the customs revenue, the chief
inspector acting as financial adviser to the Republic. It afterwards
developed that the Company never had any resources except those it had
raised on the credit of the Republic, and the country was forced to realize
that it had been cheated a second time. Meanwhile the English officials
who, on various pretexts of reform, had taken charge of the barracks and the
customs in Monrovia, were carrying things with a high hand. The Liberian
force appeared with English insignia on the uniforms, and in various other
ways the commander sought to overawe the populace. At the climax of the
difficulties, on February 13, 1909, a British warship happened to appear in
the waters of Monrovia, and a calamity was averted only by the skillful
diplomacy of the Liberians. Already, however, in 1908, Liberia had sent a
special commission to ask the aid of the United States. This consisted of
Garretson W. Gibson, former president; J.J. Dossen, vice-president at the
time, and Charles B. Dunbar. The commission was received by President
Roosevelt and by Secretary Taft just before the latter was nominated for the
presidency. On May 8, 1909, a return commission consisting of Roland P.
Falkner, George Sale, and Emmett J. Scott, arrived in Monrovia. The work
of this commission must receive further and special attention.
President Barclay was succeeded by Daniel Edward Howard (two long
terms, 1912-1919), who at his inauguration began the policy of giving
prominence to the native chiefs. The feature of President Howard's
administrations was of course Liberia's connection with the Great War in
Europe. War against Germany having been declared, on the morning of
April 10, 1918, a submarine came to Monrovia and demanded that the
French wireless station be torn down. The request being refused, the town
was bombarded. The excitement of the day was such as has never been
duplicated in the history of Liberia. In one house two young girls were

instantly killed and an elderly woman and a little boy fatally wounded; but
except in this one home the actual damage was comparatively slight, though
there might have been more if a passing British steamer had not put the
submarine to flight. Suffering of another and more far-reaching sort was
that due to the economic situation. The comparative scarcity of food in the
world and the profiteering of foreign merchants in Liberia by the summer of
1919 brought about a condition that threatened starvation; nor was the
situation better early in 1920, when butter retailed at $1.25 a pound, sugar
at 72 cents a pound, and oil at $1.00 a gallon.
President Howard was succeeded by Charles Dunbar Burgess King, who
as president-elect had visited Europe and America, and who was
inaugurated January 5, 1920. His address on this occasion was a
comprehensive presentation of the needs of Liberia, especially along the
lines of agriculture and education. He made a plea also for an enlightened
native policy. Said he: "We cannot afford to destroy the native institutions
of the country. Our true mission lies not in the building here in Africa of a
Negro state based solely on Western ideas, but rather a Negro nationality
indigenous to the soil, having its foundation rooted in the institutions of
Africa and purified by Western thought and development."

3. International Relations

Our study of the history of Liberia has suggested two or three matters
that call for special attention. Of prime importance is the country's
connection with world politics. Any consideration of Liberia's international
relations falls into three divisions: first, that of titles to land; second, that of
foreign loans; and third, that of so-called internal reform.
In the very early years of the colony the raids of slave-traders gave some
excuse for the first aggression on the part of a European power. "Driven
from the Pongo Regions northwest of Sierra Leone, Pedro Blanco settled in
the Gallinhas territory northwest of the Liberian frontier, and established
elaborate headquarters for his mammoth slave-trading operations in West
Africa, with slave-trading sub-stations at Cape Mount, St. Paul River,
Bassa, and at other points of the Liberian coast, employing numerous
police, watchers, spies, and servants. To obtain jurisdiction the colony of
Liberia began to purchase from the lords of the soil as early as 1824 the

lands of the St. Paul Basin and the Grain Coast from the Mafa River on the
west to the Grand Sesters River on the east; so that by 1845, twenty-four
years after the establishment of the colony, Liberia with the aid of Great
Britain had destroyed throughout these regions the baneful traffic in slaves
and the slave barracoons, and had driven the slave-trading leaders from the
Liberian coast."149 The trade continued to flourish, however, in the
Gallinhas territory, and in course of time, as we have seen, the colony had
also to reckon with British merchants in this section, the Declaration of
Independence in 1847 being very largely a result of the defiance of Liberian
revenue-laws by Englishmen. While President Roberts was in England not
long after his inauguration, Lord Ashley, moved by motives of philanthropy,
undertook to raise £2000 with which he (Roberts) might purchase the
Gallinhas territory; and by 1856 Roberts had secured the title and deeds to
all of this territory from the Mafa River to Sherbro Island. The whole
transaction was thoroughly honorable, Roberts informed England of his
acquisition, and his right to the territory was not then called in question.
Trouble, however, developed out of the attitude of John M. Harris, a British
merchant, and in 1862, while President Benson was in England, he was
officially informed that the right of Liberia was recognized only to the land
"east of Turner's Peninsula to the River San Pedro." Harris now worked up
a native war against the Vais; the Liberians defended themselves; and in the
end the British Government demanded £8878.9.3 as damages for losses
sustained by Harris, and arbitrarily extended its territory from Sherbro
Island to Cape Mount. In the course of the discussion claims mounted up to
£18,000. Great Britain promised to submit this boundary question to the
arbitration of the United States, but when the time arrived at the meeting of
one of the commissions in Sierra Leone she firmly declined to do so. After
this, whenever she was ready to take more land she made a plausible pretext
and was ready to back up her demands with force. On March 20, 1882, four
British men-of-war came to Monrovia and Sir A.E. Havelock, Governor of
Sierra Leone, came ashore; and President Gardiner was forced to submit to
an agreement by which, in exchange for £4750 and the abandonment of all
further claims, the Liberian Government gave up all right to the Gallinhas
territory from Sherbro Island to the Mafa River. This agreement was
repudiated by the Liberian Senate, but when Havelock was so informed he
replied, "Her Majesty's Government can not in any case recognize any
rights on the part of Liberia to any portions of the territories in dispute."

Liberia now issued a protest to other great powers; but this was without
avail, even the United States counseling acquiescence, though through the
offices of America the agreement was slightly modified and the boundary
fixed at the Mano River. Trouble next arose on the east. In 1846 the
Maryland Colonization Society purchased the lands of the Ivory Coast east
of Cape Palmas as far as the San Pedro River. These lands were formally
transferred to Liberia in 1857, and remained in the undisputed possession of
the Republic for forty years. France now, not to be outdone by England, on
the pretext of title deeds obtained by French naval commanders who visited
the coast in 1890, in 1891 put forth a claim not only to the Ivory Coast, but
to land as far away as Grand Bassa and Cape Mount. The next year, under
threat of force, she compelled Liberia to accept a treaty which, for 25,000
francs and the relinquishment of all other claims, permitted her to take all
the territory east of the Cavalla River. In 1904 Great Britain asked
permission to advance her troops into Liberian territory to suppress a native
war threatening her interests. She occupied at this time what is known as
the Kaure-Lahun section, which is very fertile and of easy access to the
Sierra Leone railway. This land she never gave up; instead she offered
Liberia £6000 or some poorer land for it. France after 1892 made no
endeavor to delimit her boundary, and, roused by the action of Great
Britain, she made great advances in the hinterland, claiming tracts of
Maryland and Sino; and now France and England each threatened to take
more land if the other was not stopped. President Barclay visited both
countries; but by a treaty of 1907 his commission was forced to permit
France to occupy all the territory seized by force; and as soon as this
agreement was reached France began to move on to other land in the basin
of the St. Paul's and St. John's rivers. This is all then simply one more story
of the oppression of the weak by the strong. For eighty years England has
not ceased to intermeddle in Liberian affairs, cajoling or browbeating as at
the moment seemed advisable; and France has been only less bad. Certainly
no country on earth now has better reason than Liberia to know that "they
should get who have the power, and they should keep who can."
The international loans and the attempts at reform must be considered
together. In 1871, at the rate of 7 per cent, there was authorized a British
loan of £100,000. For their services the British negotiators retained
£30,000, and £20,000 more was deducted as the interest for three years.
President Roye ordered Mr. Chinery, a British subject and the Liberian

consul general in London, to supply the Liberian Secretary of Treasury with
goods and merchandise to the value of £10,000; and other sums were
misappropriated until the country itself actually received the benefit of not
more than £27,000, if so much. This whole unfortunate matter was an
embarrassment to Liberia for years; but in 1899 the Republic assumed
responsibility for £80,000, the interest being made a first charge on the
customs revenue. In 1906, not yet having learned the lesson of "Cavete
Graecos dona ferentes," and moved by the representations of Sir Harry H.
Johnston, the country negotiated a new loan of £100,000. £30,000 of this
amount was to satisfy pressing obligations; but the greater portion was to be
turned over to the Liberian Development Company, a great scheme by
which the Government and the company were to work hand in hand for the
development of the country. As security for the loan, British officials were
to have charge of the customs revenue, the chief inspector acting as
financial adviser to the Republic. When the Company had made a road of
fifteen miles in one district and made one or two other slight improvements,
it represented to the Liberian Government that its funds were exhausted.
When President Barclay asked for an accounting the managing director
expressed surprise that such a demand should be made upon him. The
Liberian people were chagrined, and at length they realized that they had
been cheated a second time, with all the bitter experiences of the past to
guide them. Meanwhile the English representatives in the country were
demanding that the judiciary be reformed, that the frontier force be under
British officers, and that Inspector Lamont as financial adviser have a seat
in the Liberian cabinet and a veto power over all expenditures; and the
independence of the country was threatened if these demands were not
complied with. Meanwhile also the construction of barracks went forward
under Major Cadell, a British officer, and the organization of the frontier
force was begun. Not less than a third of this force was brought from Sierra
Leone, and the whole Cadell fitted out with suits and caps stamped with the
emblems of His Britannic Majesty's service. He also persuaded the
Monrovia city government to let him act without compensation as chief of
police, and he likewise became street commissioner, tax collector, and city
treasurer. The Liberian people naturally objected to the usurping of all these
prerogatives, but Cadell refused to resign and presented a large bill for his
services. He also threatened violence to the President if his demands were
not met within twenty-four hours. Then it was that the British warship, the

Mutiny, suddenly appeared at Monrovia (February 12, 1909). Happily the
Liberians rose to the emergency. They requested that any British soldiers at
the barracks be withdrawn in order that they might be free to deal with the
insurrectionary movement said to be there on the part of Liberian soldiers;
and thus tactfully they brought about the withdrawal of Major Cadell.
By this time, however, the Liberian commission to the United States had
done its work, and just three months after Cadell's retirement the return
American commission came. After studying the situation it made the
following recommendations: That the United States extend its aid to Liberia
in the prompt settlement of pending boundary disputes; that the United
States enable Liberia to refund its debt by assuming as a guarantee for the
payment of obligations under such arrangement the control and collection
of the Liberian customs; that the United States lend its assistance to the
Liberian Government in the reform of its internal finances; that the United
States lend its aid to Liberia in organizing and drilling an adequate
constabulary or frontier police force; that the United States establish and
maintain a research station at Liberia; and that the United States reopen the
question of establishing a coaling-station in Liberia. Under the fourth of
these recommendations Major (now Colonel) Charles Young went to
Liberia, where from time to time since he has rendered most efficient
service. Arrangements were also made for a new loan, one of $1,700,000,
which was to be floated by banking institutions in the United States,
Germany, France, and England; and in 1912 an American General Receiver
of Customs and Financial Adviser to the Republic of Liberia (with an
assistant from each of the other three countries mentioned) opened his
office in Monrovia. It will be observed that a complicated and expensive
receivership was imposed on the Liberian people when an arrangement
much more simple would have served. The loan of $1,700,000 soon proving
inadequate for any large development of the country, negotiations were
begun in 1918 for a new loan, one of $5,000,000. Among the things
proposed were improvements on the harbor of Monrovia, some good roads
through the country, a hospital, and the broadening of the work of
education. About the loan two facts were outstanding: first, any money to
be spent would be spent wholly under American and not under Liberian
auspices; and, second, to the Liberians acceptance of the terms suggested
meant practically a surrender of their sovereignty, as American appointees
were to be in most of the important positions in the country, at the same

time that upon themselves would fall the ultimate burden of the interest of
the loan. By the spring of 1920 (in Liberia, the commencement of the rainy
season) it was interesting to note that although the necessary measures of
approval had not yet been passed by the Liberian Congress, perhaps as
many as fifteen American officials had come out to the country to begin
work in education, engineering, and sanitation. Just a little later in the year
President King called an extra session of the legislature to consider
amendments. While it was in session a cablegram from the United States
was received saying that no amendments to the plan would be accepted and
that it must be accepted as submitted, "or the friendly interest which has
heretofore existed would become lessened." The Liberians were not
frightened, however, and stood firm. Meanwhile a new presidential election
took place in the United States; there was to be a radical change in the
government; and the Liberians were disposed to try further to see if some
changes could not be made in the proposed arrangements. Most watchfully
from month to month, let it be remembered, England and France were
waiting; and in any case it could easily be seen that as the Republic
approached its centennial it was face to face with political problems of the
very first magnitude.150

4. Economic and Social Conditions

From what has been said, it is evident that there is still much to be done
in Liberia along economic lines. There has been some beginning in
coöperative effort; thus the Bassa Trading Association is an organization for
mutual betterment of perhaps as many as fifty responsible merchants and
farmers. The country has as yet (1921), however, no railroads, no street
cars, no public schools, and no genuine newspapers; nor are there any
manufacturing or other enterprises for the employment of young men on a
large scale. The most promising youth accordingly look too largely to an
outlet in politics; some come to America to be educated and not always do
they return. A few become clerks in the stores, and a very few assistants in
the customs offices. There is some excellent agriculture in the interior, but
as yet no means of getting produce to market on a large scale. In 1919 the
total customs revenue at Monrovia, the largest port, amounted to
$196,913.21. For the whole country the figure has recently been just about
half a million dollars a year. Much of this amount goes to the maintenance

of the frontier force. Within the last few years also the annual income for
the city of Monrovia—for the payment of the mayor, the police, and all
other city officers—has averaged $6000.
In any consideration of social conditions the first question of all of course
is that of the character of the people themselves. Unfortunately Liberia was
begun with faulty ideals of life and work. The early settlers, frequently only
recently out of bondage, too often felt that in a state of freedom they did not
have to work, and accordingly they imitated the habits of the old master
class of the South. The real burden of life then fell upon the native. There is
still considerable feeling between the native and the Americo-Liberian; but
more and more the wisest men of the country realize that the good of one is
the good of all, and they are endeavoring to make the native chiefs work for
the common welfare. From time to time the people of Liberia have given to
visitors an impression of arrogance, and perhaps no one thing had led to
more unfriendly criticism of this country than this. The fact is that the
Liberians, knowing that their country has various shortcomings according
to Western standards, are quick to assume the defensive, and one method of
protecting themselves is by erecting a barrier of dignity and reserve. One
has only to go beyond this, however, to find the real heartbeat of the people.
The comparative isolation of the Republic moreover, and the general stress
of living conditions have together given to the everyday life an undue
seriousness of tone, with a rather excessive emphasis on the church, on
politics, and on secret societies. In such an atmosphere boys and girls too
soon became mature, and for them especially one might wish to see a little
more wholesome outdoor amusement. In school or college catalogues one
still sees much of jurisprudence and moral philosophy, but little of physics
or biology. Interestingly enough, this whole system of education and life
has not been without some elements of very genuine culture. Literature has
been mainly in the diction of Shakespeare and Milton; but Shakespeare and
Milton, though not of the twentieth century, are still good models, and
because the officials have had to compose many state documents and
deliver many formal addresses, there has been developed in the country a
tradition of good English speech. A service in any one of the representative
churches is dignified and impressive.
The churches and schools of Liberia have been most largely in the hands
of the Methodists and the Episcopalians, though the Baptists, the
Presbyterians, and the Lutherans are well represented. The Lutherans have

penetrated to a point in the interior beyond that attained by any other
denomination. The Episcopalians have excelled others, even the
Methodists, by having more constant and efficient oversight of their work.
The Episcopalians have in Liberia a little more than 40 schools, nearly half
of these being boarding-schools, with a total attendance of 2000. The
Methodists have slightly more than 30 schools, with 2500 pupils. The
Lutherans in their five mission stations have 20 American workers and 300
pupils. While it seems from these figures that the number of those reached
is small in proportion to the outlay, it must be remembered that a mission
school becomes a center from which influence radiates in all directions.
While the enterprise of the denominational institutions can not be
doubted, it may well be asked if, in so largely relieving the people of the
burden of the education of their children, they are not unduly cultivating a
spirit of dependence rather than of self-help. Something of this point of
view was emphasized by the Secretary of Public Instruction, Mr. Walter F.
Walker, in an address, "Liberia and Her Educational Problems," delivered in
Chicago in 1916. Said he of the day schools maintained by the churches:
"These day schools did invaluable service in the days of the Colony and
Commonwealth, and, indeed, in the early days of the Republic; but to their
continuation must undoubtedly be ascribed the tardy recognition of the
government and people of the fact that no agency for the education of the
masses is as effective as the public school.... There is not one public school
building owned by the government or by any city or township."
It might further be said that just now in Liberia there is no institution that
is primarily doing college work. Two schools in Monrovia, however, call
for special remark. The College of West Africa, formerly Monrovia
Seminary, was founded by the Methodist Church in 1839. The institution
does elementary and lower high school work, though some years ago it
placed a little more emphasis on college work than it has been able to do
within recent years. It was of this college that the late Bishop A.P. Camphor
served so ably as president for twelve years. Within recent years it has
recognized the importance of industrial work and has had in all departments
an average annual enrollment of 300. Not quite so prominent within the last
few years, but with more tradition and theoretically at the head of the
educational system of the Republic is the Liberia College. In 1848 Simon
Greenleaf of Boston, received from John Payne, a missionary at Cape
Palmas, a request for his assistance in building a theological school. Out of

this suggestion grew the Board of Trustees of Donations for Education in
Liberia incorporated in Massachusetts in March, 1850. The next year the
Liberia legislature incorporated the Liberia College, it being understood
that the institution would emphasize academic as well as theological
subjects. In 1857 Ex-President J.J. Roberts was elected president; he
superintended the erection of a large building; and in 1862 the college was
opened for work. Since then it has had a very uneven existence, sometimes
enrolling, aside from its preparatory department, twenty or thirty college
students, then again having no college students at all. Within the last few
years, as the old building was completely out of repair, the school has had
to seek temporary quarters. It is too vital to the country to be allowed to
languish, however, and it is to be hoped that it may soon be well started
upon a new career of usefulness. In the course of its history the Liberia
College has had connected with it some very distinguished men. Famous as
teacher and lecturer, and president from 1881 to 1885, was Edward Wilmot
Blyden, generally regarded as the foremost scholar that Western Africa has
given to the world. Closely associated with him in the early years, and well
known in America as in Africa, was Alexander Crummell, who brought to
his teaching the richness of English university training. A trustee for a
number of years was Samuel David Ferguson, of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, who served with great dignity and resource as missionary bishop of
the country from 1884 until his death in 1916. A new president of the
college, Rev. Nathaniel H.B. Cassell, was elected in 1918, and it is expected
that under his efficient direction the school will go forward to still greater
years of service.
Important in connection with the study of the social conditions in Liberia
is that of health and living conditions. One who lives in America and knows
that Africa is a land of unbounded riches can hardly understand the extent to
which the West Coast has been exploited, or the suffering that is there just
now. The distress is most acute in the English colonies, and as Liberia is so
close to Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, much of the same situation
prevails there. In Monrovia the only bank is the branch of the Bank of
British West Africa. In the branches of this great institution all along the
coast, as a result of the war, gold disappeared, silver became very scarce,
and the common form of currency became paper notes, issued in
denominations as low as one and two shillings. These the natives have
refused to accept. They go even further: rather than bring their produce to

the towns and receive paper for it they will not come at all. In Monrovia an
effort was made to introduce the British West African paper currency, and
while this failed, more and more the merchants insisted on being paid in
silver, nor in an ordinary purchase would silver be given in change on an
English ten-shilling note. Prices accordingly became exorbitant; children
were not properly nourished and the infant mortality grew to astonishing
proportions. Nor were conditions made better by the lack of sanitation and
by the prevalence of disease. Happily relief for these conditions—for some
of them at least—seems to be in sight, and it is expected that before very
long a hospital will be erected in Monrovia.
One or two reflections suggest themselves. It has been said that the
circumstances under which Liberia was founded led to a despising of
industrial effort. The country is now quite awake, however, to the
advantages of industrial and agricultural enterprise. A matter of supreme
importance is that of the relation of the Americo-Liberian to the native; this
will work itself out, for the native is the country's chief asset for the future.
In general the Republic needs a few visible evidences of twentieth century
standards of progress; two or three high schools and hospitals built on the
American plan would work wonders. Finally let it not be forgotten that
upon the American Negro rests the obligation to do whatever he can to help
to develop the country. If he will but firmly clasp hands with his brother
across the sea, a new day will dawn for American Negro and Liberian alike.
Footnote 135: (return)
"Journal of Daniel Coker, a descendant of Africa, from the time of leaving New
York, in the ship Elizabeth, Capt. Sebor, on a voyage for Sherbro, in Africa.
Baltimore, 1820."

Footnote 136: (return)
March 15. The narrative, page 26, says February 15, but this is obviously a
typographical error.

Footnote 137: (return)
Ashmun: History of the American Colony in Liberia, from 1821 to 1823, 8.

Footnote 138: (return)
Ashmun, 9.

Footnote 139: (return)
See Chapter III, Section 5.

Footnote 140: (return)
Stockwell, 73.

Footnote 141: (return)
This name, in honor of President Monroe, had recently been adopted by the
Society at the suggestion of Robert Goodloe Harper, of Maryland, who also
suggested the name Liberia for the country. Harper himself was afterwards
honored by having the chief town in Maryland in Africa named after him.

Footnote 142: (return)
Stockwell, 79.

Footnote 143: (return)
McPherson is especially valuable for his study of the Maryland colony.

Footnote 144: (return)
Karnga, 28.

Footnote 145: (return)
But not Hilary R.W. Johnson, the efficient Secretary of State, later President.

Footnote 146: (return)
President Roberts died February 21, 1876, barely two months after giving up
office. He was caught in the rain while attending a funeral, took a severe chill,
and was not able to recover.

Footnote 147: (return)
See Liberia, Bulletin No. 5, November, 1894.

Footnote 148: (return)
Interest in Liberia by no means completely died. Contributions for education
were sometimes made by the representative organizations, and individual
students came to America from time to time. When, however, the important
commission representing the Government came to America in 1908, the public
was slightly startled as having heard from something half-forgotten.

Footnote 149: (return)
Ellis in Journal of Race Development, January, 1911.

Footnote 150: (return)
Early in 1921 President King headed a new commission to the United States to
take up the whole matter of Liberia with the incoming Republican
administration.

CHAPTER X
THE NEGRO A NATIONAL ISSUE

1. Current Tendencies

It is evident from what has been said already that the idea of the Negro
current about 1830 in the United States was not very exalted. It was
seriously questioned if he was really a human being, and doctors of divinity
learnedly expounded the "Cursed be Canaan" passage as applying to him. A
prominent physician of Mobile151 gave it as his opinion that "the brain of
the Negro, when compared with the Caucasian, is smaller by a tenth ... and
the intellect is wanting in the same proportion," and finally asserted that
Negroes could not live in the North because "a cold climate so freezes their
brains as to make them insane." About mulattoes, like many others, he
stretched his imagination marvelously. They were incapable of undergoing
fatigue; the women were very delicate and subject to all sorts of diseases,
and they did not beget children as readily as either black women or white
women. In fact, said Nott, between the ages of twenty-five and forty
mulattoes died ten times as fast as either white or black people; between
forty and fifty-five fifty times as fast, and between fifty-five and seventy
one hundred times as fast.
To such opinions was now added one of the greatest misfortunes that
have befallen the Negro race in its entire history in America—burlesque on
the stage. When in 1696 Thomas Southerne adapted Oroonoko from the
novel of Mrs. Aphra Behn and presented in London the story of the African
prince who was stolen from his native Angola, no one saw any reason why
the Negro should not be a subject for serious treatment on the stage, and the
play was a great success, lasting for decades. In 1768, however, was
presented at Drury Lane a comic opera, The Padlock, and a very prominent
character was Mungo, the slave of a West Indian planter, who got drunk in

the second act and was profane throughout the performance. In the course
of the evening Mungo entertained the audience with such lines as the
following:

Dear heart, what a terrible life I am led!
A dog has a better, that's sheltered and fed.
Night and day 'tis the same;
My pain is deir game:
Me wish to de Lord me was dead!
Whate'er's to be done,
Poor black must run.
Mungo here, Mungo dere,
Mungo everywhere:
Above and below,
Sirrah, come; sirrah, go;
Do so, and do so,
Oh! oh!
Me wish to de Lord me was dead!

The depreciation of the race that Mungo started continued, and when in
1781 Robinson Crusoe was given as a pantomime at Drury Lane, Friday
was represented as a Negro. The exact origins of Negro minstrelsy are not
altogether clear; there have been many claimants, and it is interesting to
note in passing that there was an "African Company" playing in New York
in the early twenties, though this was probably nothing more than a small
group of amateurs. Whatever may have been the beginning, it was Thomas
D. Rice who brought the form to genuine popularity. In Louisville in the
summer of 1828, looking from one of the back windows of a theater, he was
attracted by an old and decrepit slave who did odd jobs about a livery
stable. The slave's master was named Crow and he called himself Jim Crow.
His right shoulder was drawn up high and his left leg was stiff at the knee,
but he took his deformity lightly, singing as he worked. He had one favorite
tune to which he had fitted words of his own, and at the end of each verse
he made a ludicrous step which in time came to be known as "rocking the
heel." His refrain consisted of the words:
Wheel about, turn about,
Do jis so,
An' ebery time I wheel about
I jump Jim Crow.

Rice, who was a clever and versatile performer, caught the air, made up
like the Negro, and in the course of the next season introduced Jim Crow
and his step to the stage, and so successful was he in his performance that
on his first night in the part he was encored twenty times.152 Rice had many
imitators among the white comedians of the country, some of whom indeed
claimed priority in opening up the new field, and along with their burlesque
these men actually touched upon the possibilities of plaintive Negro
melodies, which they of course capitalized. In New York late in 1842 four
men—"Dan" Emmett, Frank Brower, "Billy" Whitlock, and "Dick" Pelham
—practiced together with fiddle and banjo, "bones" and tambourine, and
thus was born the first company, the "Virginia Minstrels," which made its
formal debut in New York February 17, 1843. Its members produced in
connection with their work all sorts of popular songs, one of Emmett's
being "Dixie," which, introduced by Mrs. John Wood in a burlesque in New
Orleans at the outbreak of the Civil War, leaped into popularity and became
the war-song of the Confederacy. Companies multipled apace. "Christy's
Minstrels" claimed priority to the company already mentioned, but did not
actually enter upon its New York career until 1846. "Bryant's Minstrels" and
Buckley's "New Orleans Serenaders" were only two others of the most
popular aggregations featuring and burlesquing the Negro. In a social
history of the Negro in America, however, it is important to observe in
passing that already, even in burlesque, the Negro element was beginning to
enthrall the popular mind. About the same time as minstrelsy also
developed the habit of belittling the race by making the name of some
prominent and worthy Negro a term of contempt; thus "cuffy" (corrupted
from Paul Cuffe) now came into widespread use.
This was not all. It was now that the sinister crime of lynching raised its
head in defiance of all law. At first used as a form of punishment for
outlaws and gamblers, it soon came to be applied especially to Negroes.
One was burned alive near Greenville, S.C., in 1825; in May, 1835, two
were burned near Mobile for the murder of two children; and for the years
between 1823 and 1860 not less than fifty-six cases of the lynching of
Negroes have been ascertained, though no one will ever know how many
lost their lives without leaving any record. Certainly more men were
executed illegally than legally; thus of forty-six recorded murders by
Negroes of owners or overseers between 1850 and 1860 twenty resulted in
legal execution and twenty-six in lynching. Violent crimes against white

women were not relatively any more numerous than now; but those that
occurred or were attempted received swift punishment; thus of seventeen
cases of rape in the ten years last mentioned Negroes were legally executed
in five and lynched in twelve.153
Extraordinary attention was attracted by the burning in St. Louis in 1835
of a man named McIntosh, who had killed an officer who was trying to
arrest him.154 This event came in the midst of a period of great agitation,
and it was for denouncing this lynching that Elijah P. Lovejoy had his
printing-office destroyed in St. Louis and was forced to remove to Alton,
Ill., where his press was three times destroyed and where he finally met
death at the hands of a mob while trying to protect his property November
7, 1837. Judge Lawless defended the lynching and even William Ellery
Channing took a compromising view. Abraham Lincoln, however, then a
very young man, in an address on "The Perpetuation of Our Political
Institutions" at Springfield, January 27, 1837, said: "Accounts of outrages
committed by mobs form the everyday news of the times. They have
pervaded the country from New England to Louisiana; they are neither
peculiar to the eternal snows of the former nor the burning suns of the
latter; they are not the creatures of climate, neither are they confined to the
slaveholding or the nonslaveholding states.... Turn to that horror-striking
scene at St. Louis. A single victim only was sacrificed there. This story is
very short, and is perhaps the most highly tragic of anything that has ever
been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man by the name of McIntosh was
seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and
actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had
been a free man attending to his own business and at peace with the
world.... Such are the effects of mob law, and such are the scenes becoming
more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and
order, and the stories of which have even now grown too familiar to attract
anything more than an idle remark."
All the while flagrant crimes were committed against Negro women and
girls, and free men in the border states were constantly being dragged into
slavery by kidnapers. Two typical cases will serve for illustration. George
Jones, a respectable man of New York, was in 1836 arrested on Broadway
on the pretext that he had committed assault and battery. He refused to go
with his captors, for he knew that he had done nothing to warrant such a

charge; but he finally yielded on the assurance of his employer that
everything possible would be done for him. He was placed in the Bridewell
and a few minutes afterwards taken before a magistrate, to whose
satisfaction he was proved to be a slave. Thus, in less than two hours after
his arrest he was hurried away by the kidnapers, whose word had been
accepted as sufficient evidence, and he had not been permitted to secure a
single friendly witness. Solomon Northrup, who afterwards wrote an
account of his experiences, was a free man who lived in Saratoga and made
his living by working about the hotels, where in the evenings he often
played the violin at parties. One day two men, supposedly managers of a
traveling circus company, met him and offered him good pay if he would go
with them as a violinist to Washington. He consented, and some mornings
afterwards awoke to find himself in a slave pen in the capital. How he got
there was ever a mystery to him, but evidently he had been drugged. He
was taken South and sold to a hard master, with whom he remained twelve
years before he was able to effect his release.155 In the South any free
Negro who entertained a runaway might himself become a slave; thus in
South Carolina in 1827 a free woman with her three children suffered this
penalty because she gave succor to two homeless and fugitive children six
and nine years old.
Day by day, moreover, from the capital of the nation went on the internal
slave-trade. "When by one means and another a dealer had gathered twenty
or more likely young Negro men and girls, he would bring them forth from
their cells; would huddle the women and young children into a cart or
wagon; would handcuff the men in pairs, the right hand of one to the left
hand of another; make the handcuffs fast to a long chain which passed
between each pair of slaves, and would start his procession southward."156
It is not strange that several of the unfortunate people committed suicide.
One distracted mother, about to be separated from her loved ones,
dumbfounded the nation by hurling herself from the window of a prison in
the capital on the Sabbath day and dying in the street below.
Meanwhile even in the free states the disabilities of the Negro continued.
In general he was denied the elective franchise, the right of petition, the
right to enter public conveyances or places of amusement, and he was
driven into a status of contempt by being shut out from the army and the
militia. He had to face all sorts of impediments in getting education or in

pursuing honest industry; he had nothing whatever to do with the
administration of justice; and generally he was subject to insult and outrage.
One might have supposed that on all this proscription and denial of the
ordinary rights of human beings the Christian Church would have taken a
positive stand. Unfortunately, as so often happens, it was on the side of
property and vested interest rather than on that of the oppressed. We have
already seen that Southern divines held slaves and countenanced the
system; and by 1840 James G. Birney had abundant material for his
indictment, "The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery."
He showed among other things that while in 1780 the Methodist Episcopal
Church had opposed slavery and in 1784 had given a slaveholder one
month to repent or withdraw from its conferences, by 1836 it had so drifted
away from its original position as to disclaim "any right, wish, or intention
to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave, as it
existed in the slaveholding states of the union." Meanwhile in the churches
of the North there was the most insulting discrimination; in the Baptist
Church in Hartford the pews for Negroes were boarded up in front, and in
Stonington, Conn., the floor was cut out of a Negro's pew by order of the
church authorities. In Boston, in a church that did not welcome and that
made little provision for Negroes, a consecrated deacon invited into his own
pew some Negro people, whereupon he lost the right to hold a pew in his
church. He decided that there should be some place where there might be
more freedom of thought and genuine Christianity, he brought others into
the plan, and the effort that he put forth resulted in what has since become
the Tremont Temple Baptist Church.
Into all this proscription, burlesque, and crime, and denial of the
fundamental principles of Christianity, suddenly came the program of the
Abolitionists; and it spoke with tongues of fire, and had all the vigor and
force of a crusade.

2. The Challenge of the Abolitionists

The great difference between the early abolition societies which resulted
in the American Convention and the later anti-slavery movement of which
Garrison was the representative figure was the difference between a
humanitarian impulse tempered by expediency and one that had all the