Vol. III—October, 1918—No. 4

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MISCEGENATION OF THE WHITES AND BLACKS

Although science has uprooted the theory, a number of writers are loath to give up the contention that the white race is superior to others, as it is still hoped that the Caucasian race may be preserved in its purity, especially so far as it means miscegenation with the blacks. But there are others who express doubt that the integrity of the dominant race has been maintained.[442] Scholars have for centuries differed as to the composition of the mixed breed stock constituting the Mediterranean race and especially about that in Egypt and the Barbary States. In that part of the dark continent many inhabitants have certain characteristics which are more Caucasian than negroid and have achieved more than investigators have been willing to consider the civilization of the Negro. It is clear, however, that although the people of northern Africa cannot be classed as Negroes, being bounded on the south by the masses of African blacks, they have so generally mixed their blood with that of the blacks that in many parts they are no nearer to any white stock than the Negroes of the United States.

This miscegenation, to be sure, increased toward the south into central Africa, but it has extended also to the north and east into Asia and Europe. Traces of Negro blood have been found in the Malay States, India and Polynesia. In the Arabian Peninsula it has been so extensive as to constitute a large group there called the Arabised Negroes. But most significant of all has been the invasion of Europe by persons of African blood. Professor Sergi leads one to conclude that the ancient Pelasgii were of African origin or probably the descendants of the race which settled northern Africa and southern Europe, and are therefore due credit for the achievements of the early Greek and Italian civilizations.[443]

There is much evidence of a further extension of this infusion in the Mediterranean world.

"Recent discoveries made in the vicinity of the principality of Monaco and others in Italy and western France," says MacDonald, "would seem to reveal ... the actual fact that many thousand years ago a negroid race had penetrated through Italy into France, leaving traces at the present day in the physiognomy of the peoples of southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and western France, and even in the western parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There are even at the present day some examples of the Keltiberian peoples of western Scotland, southern and western Wales, southern and western Ireland, of distinctly negroid aspect, and in whose ancestry there is no indication whatever of any connection with the West Indies or with Modern Africa. Still more marked is this feature in the peoples of southern and western France and of the other parts of the Mediterranean already mentioned."[444]

Because of the temperament of the Portugese this infusion of African blood was still more striking in their country. As the Portugese are a good-natured people void of race hate they did not dread the miscegenation of the races. One finds in southern Portugal a "strong Moorish, North African element" and also an "old intermixture with those Negroes who were imported thither from Northwest Africa to till the scantily populated southern provinces."[445] This miscegenation among the Portugese easily extended to the New World. Then followed the story of the Caramarii, the descendants of the Portugese, who after being shipwrecked near Bahia arose to prominence among the Tupinambo Indians and produced a clan of half-castes by taking to himself numerous native women.[446] This admixture served as a stepping stone to the assimilation of the Negroes when they came.

There immigrated later into Brazil other settlers who, mixing eagerly with the Amerindians, gave rise to a race called Mamelucos who began to mix maritally with the imported Negro women. The French and Dutch too in caring for their offspring by native women promoted the same. "They educated them, set them free, lifted them above servitude, and raised them socially to the level of the whites"[447] so that today generally speaking there are no distinctions in society or politics in Brazil. Commenting on this condition in Brazil, Agassiz said: "This hybrid class, although more marked here because the Indian is added, is very numerous in all cities; perhaps, the fact, so honorable to Brazil, that the free Negro has full access to all privileges of any free citizen, rather tends to increase than to dimmish that number." After emancipation in Brazil in 1888, the already marked tendency toward this fusion of the slave and the master classes gradually increased.[448]

The Spaniards mixed less freely with the Negroes than did the Portugese but mixed just the same. At first they seriously considered the inconveniences which might arise from miscegenation under frontier conditions and generally refrained from extensive intermingling. But men are but men and as Spanish women were far too few in the New World at that time, the other sex of their race soon yielded to the charms of women of African blood. The rise of the mixed breeds too further facilitated the movement. Spaniards who refused to intermingle with the blacks found it convenient to approach the hybrids who showed less color. In the course of time, therefore, the assimilation of the blacks was as pronounced in some of the Spanish colonies as in those which originally exhibited less race antipathy. There are millions of Hispanicized Negroes in Latin America. Many of the mixed breeds, however, have Indian rather than Negro blood.[449]

Miscegenation had its best chance among the French. Not being disinclined to mingle with Negroes, the French early faced the problem of the half caste, which was given consideration in the most human of all slave regulations, the Code Noir.[450] It provided that free men who had children from their concubinage with women-slaves (if they consented to such concubinage) should be punished by a fine of two thousand pounds of sugar. But if the offender was the master himself, in addition to the fine, the slave should be taken from him, sold for the benefit of the hospital and never be allowed to be freed; excepting, that, if the man was not married to another person at the time of his concubinage, he was to marry the woman slave, who, together with her children, should thereby become free. Masters were forbidden to constrain slaves to marry against their will. Many Frenchmen like those in Haiti married their Negro mistresses, producing attractive half caste women who because of their wealth were sought by gentlemen in preference to their own women without dot.

Among the English the situation was decidedly different. There was not so much need for the use of Negro women by Englishmen in the New World, but there was the same tendency to cohabit with them. In the end, however, the English, unlike the Latins, disowned their offspring by slave women, leaving these children to follow the condition of their mother. There was, therefore, not so much less miscegenation among the English but there remained the natural tendency so to denounce these unions as eventually to restrict the custom, as it is today, to the weaker types of both races, the offspring of whom in the case of slave mothers became a commodity in the commercial world.

There was extensive miscegenation in the English colonies, however, before the race as a majority could realize the apparent need for maintaining its integrity. With the development of the industries came the use of the white servants as well as the slaves. The status of the one differed from that of the other in that the former at the expiration of his term of service could become free whereas the latter was doomed to servitude for life. In the absence of social distinctions between these two classes of laborers there arose considerable intermingling growing out of a community of interests. In the colonies in which the laborers were largely of one class or the other not so much of this admixture was feared, but in the plantations having a considerable sprinkling of the two miscegenation usually ensued.

The following, therefore, was enacted in Maryland in 1661 as a response to the question of the council to the lower house as to what it intended should become of such free women of the English or other Christian nations as married Negroes or other slaves.[451] The preamble reads: "And forasmuch as divers freeborn English women, forgetful of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation, do intermarry with negro slaves,[452] by which also divers suits may arise, touching the issue of such women, and a great damage doth befall the master of such negroes, for preservation whereof for deterring such free-born women from such shameful matches, be it enacted: That whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarry with any slave, from and after the last day of the present assembly, shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issues of such free-born women, so married, shall be slaves as their fathers were." "And be it further enacted: That all the issues of English, or other free-born women, that have already married negroes, shall serve the master of their parents, till they be thirty years of age and no longer."[453]

According to A. J. Calhoun, however, all planters of Maryland did not manifest so much ire because of this custom among indentured servants. "Planters, said he, "sometimes married white women servants to Negroes in order to transform the Negroes and their offspring into slaves.[454] This was in violation of the ancient unwritten law that the children of a free woman, the father being a slave, follow the status of their mother and are free. The custom gave rise to an interesting case. "Irish Nell," one of the servants brought to Maryland by Lord Baltimore, was sold by him to a planter when he returned to England. Following the custom of other masters who held white women as servants, he soon married her to a Negro named Butler to produce slaves. Upon hearing this, Baltimore used his influence to have the law repealed but the abrogation of it was construed by the Court of Appeals not to have any effect on the status of her offspring almost a century later when William and Mary Butler sued for their freedom on the ground that they descended from this white woman. The Provincial Court had granted them freedom but in this decision the Court of Appeals reversed the lower tribunal on the ground that "Irish Nell" was a slave before the measure repealing the act had been passed. This case came up again 1787 when Mary, the daughter of William and Mary Butler, petitioned the State for freedom. Both tribunals then decided to grant this petition.[455]

The act of repeal of 1681, therefore, is self explanatory. The preamble reads: "Forasmuch as, divers free-born English, or white women, sometimes by the instigation, procurement or connivance of their masters, mistresses, or dames, and always to the satisfaction of their lascivious and lustful desires, and to the disgrace not only of the English, but also of many other Christian nations, do intermarry with Negroes and slaves, by which means, divers inconveniences, controversies, and suits may arise, touching the issue or children of such free-born women aforesaid; for the prevention whereof for the future, Be it enacted: That if the marriage of any woman-servant with any slave shall take place by the procurement of permission of the master, such woman and her issue shall be free." It enacted a penalty by fine on the master or mistress and on the person joining the parties in marriage.[456]

The effect of this law was merely to prevent masters from prostituting white women to an economic purpose. It did not prevent the miscegenation of the two races. McCormac says: "Mingling of the races in Maryland continued during the eighteenth century, in spite of all laws against it. Preventing marriages of white servants with slaves only led to a greater social evil, which caused a reaction of public sentiment against the servant. Masters and society in general were burdened with the care of illegitimate mulatto children, and it became necessary to frame laws compelling the guilty parties to reimburse the masters for the maintenance of these unfortunate waifs."[457] To remedy this laws were passed in 1715 and 1717 to reduce to the status of a servant for seven years any white man or white woman who cohabited with any Negro, free or slave. Their children were made servants for thirty-one years, a black thus concerned was reduced to slavery for life and the maintenance of the bastard children of women servants was made incumbent upon masters. If the father of an illegitimate child could be discovered, he would have to support his offspring. If not this duty fell upon the mother who had to discharge it by servitude or otherwise.[458]

As what had been done to prevent the admixture was not sufficient, the Maryland General Assembly took the following action in 1728:

"Whereas by the act of assembly relating to servants and slaves, there is no provision made for the punishment of free mulatto women, having bastard children by negroes and other slaves, nor is there any provision made in the said act for the punishment of free negro women, having bastard children by white men; and forasmuch as such copulations are as unnatural and inordinate as between white women and negro men, or other slaves.

"Be it enacted, That from and after the end of this present session of assembly, that all such free mulatto women, having bastard children, either within or after the time of their service, (and their issue,) shall be subject to the same penalties that white women and their issue are, for having mulatto bastards, by the act, entitled, An act relating to servants and slaves.

"And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, by and with the advice and consent aforesaid, that from and after the end of this present session of assembly, that all free negro women, having bastard children by white men, (and their issue,) shall be subject to the same penalties that white women are, by the act aforesaid, for having bastards by negro men."[459]

Virginia which faced the same problem did not lag far behind Maryland. In 1630 the Governor and Council in Court ordered Hugh Davis to be soundly whipped before an assembly of Negroes and others for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of a Christian by defiling his body in lying with a Negro, which he was to acknowledge next Sabbath day. In 1662 the colony imposed double fines for fornication with a Negro, but did not restrict intermarriage until 1691.[460] The words of the preamble give the reasons for this action. It says:

"And for the prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negro, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever, and that the justices of each respective countie within this dominion make it their perticular care, that this act be put in effectuall execution."

If any free English woman should have a bastard child by any Negro or mulatto, she should pay the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, within one month after such bastard child should be born, to the church wardens of the parish where she should be delivered of such child, and in default of such payment she should be taken into the possession of the said church wardens and disposed of for five years, and such bastard child should be bound out as a servant by the church wardens until he or she should attain the age of thirty years, and in case such English woman that should have such bastard child be a servant, she should be sold by the church wardens (after her time is expired that she ought by law to serve her master) for five years, and the money she should be sold for divided as before appointed, and the child should serve as aforesaid.[461]

It was further provided in 1753 that if any woman servant should have a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto, over and above the year's service due to her master or owner, she should immediately upon the expiration of her time, to her then present master, or owner, pay down to the church wardens of the parish wherein such child should be born for the use of the said parish, fifteen pounds current money of Virginia, or be sold for five years to the use aforesaid; and if a free Christian white woman should have such bastard child by a Negro, or mulatto, for every such offence, she should within one month after her delivery of such bastard child, pay to the church wardens for the time being, of the parish wherein such child should be born, for the use of the said parish, fifteen pounds current money of Virginia, or be by them sold for five years to the use aforesaid; and in both the said cases, the church wardens should bind the said child to be a servant until it should be of thirty-one years of age.

And for a further prevention of that "abominable mixture, and the spurious issue, which may hereafter increase in this his majesty's colony and dominion as well by English, and other white men and women, intermarrying with Negroes or mulattoes, as by their unlawful coition with them" it was enacted that whatsoever English, or other white man or woman, being free, should intermarry with a Negro, or mulatto man or woman bond or free, should by judgment of the county court, be committed to prison and there remain during the space of six months, without bail or main-prize, and should forfeit and pay ten pounds current money of Virginia, to the use of the parish as aforesaid. It was further enacted that no minister of the Church of England, or other minister or person whatsoever, within that colony and dominion, should thereafter presume to marry a white man with a Negro, or mulatto woman, or to marry a white woman with a Negro or mulatto man, upon pain of forfeiting and paying for every such marriage, the sum of ten thousand pounds of tobacco.[462]

It developed later that these laws did not meet all requirements, for there were in subsequent years so many illegitimate children born of such mothers that they became a public charge.[463] Those of Negro blood were bound out by law. According to Russell, "In 1727 it was ordered that David James a free negro boy, be bound to Mr. James Isdel 'who is to teach him to read ye bible distinctly also ye trade of a gunsmith that he carry him to ye Clark's office & take Indenture to that purpose.' "By the Warwick County court it was 'ordered that Malacai, a mulatto boy, son of mulatto Betty be, by the Church Wardens of this Parish bound to Thomas Hobday to learn the art of a planter according to law.' By order of the Norfolk County court, about 1770, a free negro was bound out 'to learn the trade of a tanner.'"[464]

In making more stringent regulations for servants and slaves, North Carolina provided in 1715 that if a white servant woman had a child by a Negro, mulatto or Indian, she must serve her master two years extra and should pay to the Church wardens immediately on the expiration of that time six pounds for the use of the parish or be sold four years for the use aforesaid.[465] A clergyman found guilty of officiating at such a marriage should be fined fifty pounds. This law, according to Bassett, did not succeed in preventing such unions. Two ministers were indicted within two years for performing such a marriage ceremony. "In one case the suit was dropped, in the other case the clergyman went before the Chief Justice and confessed as it seems of his own accord.... In 1727 a white woman was indicted in the General Court because she had left her husband and was cohabiting with a negro slave.... So far as general looseness was concerned this law of 1715 had no force. Brickell, who was a physician, says that white men of the colony suffered a great deal from a malignant kind of venereal disease which they took from the slaves."[466]

By the law of 1741 therefore the colony endeavored to prevent what the General Assembly called "that abominable mixture and spurious issue, which hereafter may increase in this government, by white men and women intermarrying with Indians, Negroes, mustees, or mulattoes." It was enacted that if any man or woman, being free, should intermarry with an Indian, Negro, mustee or mulatto man or woman, or any person of mixed blood, to the third generation, bond or free, he should, by judgment of the county court forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds, proclamation money, to the use of the parish.[467] It was also provided that if any white servant woman should during the time of her servitude, be delivered of a child, begotten by any Negro, mulatto or Indian, such servant, over and above the time she was by this act to serve her master or owner for such offence, should be sold by the Church wardens of the parish, for two years, after the time by indenture or otherwise had expired.[468]

The miscegenation of the whites and blacks extended so widely that it became a matter of concern to the colonies farther north where the Negro population was not considerable. Seeking also to prevent this "spurious mixt issue" Massachusetts enacted in 1705 that a Negro or mulatto man committing fornication with an "English woman, or a woman of any other Christian nation," should be sold out of the province." "An English man, or man of any other Christian nation committing fornication with a Negro or mulatto woman," should be whipped, and the woman sold out of the province. None of her Majesty's English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation within that province should contract matrimony with any Negro or mulatto, under a penalty imposed on the person joining them in marriage. No master should unreasonably deny marriage to his Negro with one of the same nation; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.[469]

There was much social contact between the white servants and the Negroes in Pennsylvania, where the number of the latter greatly increased during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Turner says a white servant was indicted for this offence in Sussex County in 1677 and a tract of land there bore the name of "Mulatto Hall."[470] According to the same writer Chester County seemed to have a large number of these cases and laid down the principle that such admixture should be prohibited,

"For that hee," referring to a white man, "Contrary to his Masters Consent hath ... got wth child a certaine molato wooman Called Swart anna." "David Lewis Constable of Haverford Returned a Negro man of his And a white woman for having a Bastard Childe ... the Negroe said she Intised him and promised him to marry him: she being examined, Confest the same: the Court ordered that she shall receive Twenty one lashes on her bare Backe ... and the Court ordered the negroe never more to meddle with any white woman more uppon paine of his life."[471]

Advertising for Richard Molson in Philadelphia in 1720, his master said, "He is in company with a white woman named Mary, who is supposed now goes for his wife"; "and a white man named Garrett Choise, and Jane his wife, which said white people are servants to some neighbors of the said Richard Tilghman."[472] In 1722 a woman was punished for abetting a clandestine marriage between a white woman and a Negro. In the Pennsylvania Gazette, June 1, 1749, appeared the notice of the departure of Isaac Cromwell, a mulatto, who ran away with an English servant woman named Anne Greene.[473]

The Assembly, therefore, upon a petition from inhabitants inveighing against this custom enacted a prohibitory law in 1725. This law provided that no minister, pastor or magistrate or other person whatsover who according to the laws of that province usually joined people in marriage should upon any pretence whatever join in marriage any Negro with any white person on the penalty of one hundred pounds. And it was further enacted that if any white man or woman should cohabit or dwell with any Negro under pretense of being married, such white man or woman should be put out of service as above directed until they come to the age of thirty-one years; and if any free Negro man or woman should intermarry with a white man or woman, such Negro should become a slave during life to be sold by order of the justice of the quarter sessions of the respective county; and if any free Negro man or woman should commit fornication or adultery with any white man or woman, such Negro or Negroes should be sold as a servant for seven years and the white man or woman should be punished as the law directs in cases of adultery or fornication.[474]

This law seemed to have very little effect on the miscegenation of the races in certain parts. In Chester County, according to the records of 1780, mulattoes constituted one fifth of the Negro population.[475] Furthermore, that very year when the State of Pennsylvania had grown sufficiently liberal to provide for gradual emancipation the law against the mingling of the races was repealed. Mixed marriages thereafter became common as the white and the blacks in the light of the American Revolution realized liberty in its full meaning. Thomas Branagan said:

"There are many, very many blacks who ... begin to feel themselves consequential, ... will not be satisfied unless they get white women for wives, and are likewise exceedingly impertinent to white people in low circumstances.... I solemnly swear, I have seen more white women married to, and deluded through the arts of seduction by negroes in one year in Philadelphia, than for eight years I was visiting (West Indies and the Southern States). I know a black man who seduced a young white girl ... who soon after married him, and died with a broken heart. On her death he said that he would not disgrace himself to have a negro wife and acted accordingly, for he soon after married a white woman. ... There are perhaps hundreds of white women thus fascinated by black men in this city, and there are thousands of black children by them at present."[476]

A reaction thereafter set in against this custom during the first decade of the nineteenth century, when fugitives in the rough were rushing to that State, and culminated in an actual campaign against it by 1820. That year a petition from Greene County said that many Negroes had settled in Pennsylvania and had been able to seduce into marriage "the minor children of the white inhabitants."[477] This county, therefore, asked that these marriages be made an offence against the laws of the State. Such a marriage was the cause of a riot in Columbia in 1834 and in 1838 the members of the Constitutional Convention engaged in a heated discussion of the custom.[478] Petitions were frequently sent to the legislature asking that this admixture be penalized by law, but no such action was ever taken. Relying upon public opinion, however, the advocates of racial integrity practically succeeded. Marriages of whites and blacks eventually became so odious that they led to disturbances as in the case of the riot of 1849, one of the causes of which was that a white man was living with a Negro wife.[479] This was almost ineffective, however, in the prevention of race admixture. Clandestine intermingling went on and tended to increase in enormous proportions. The conclusive proof of this is that in 1860 mulattoes constituted one third of the Negro population of Pennsylvania.

Persons who professed seriously to consider the future of slavery, therefore, saw that miscegenation and especially the general connection of white men with their female slaves introduced a mulatto race whose numbers would become dangerous, if the affections of their white parents were permitted to render them free.[480] The Americans of the future would thereby become a race of mixed breeds rather than a white and a black population. As the lust of white persons for those of color was too strong to prevent this miscegenation, the liberty of emancipating their mulatto offspring was restricted in the slave States but that of selling them remained.[481]

These laws eventually, therefore, had their desired effect. They were never intended to prevent the miscegenation of the races but to debase to a still lower status the offspring of the blacks who in spite of public opinion might intermarry with the poor white women and to leave women of color without protection against white men, who might use them for convenience, whereas white women and black men would gradually grow separate and distinct in their social relations. Although thereafter the offspring of blacks and whites did not diminish, instead of being gradually assimilated to the type of the Caucasian they tended to constitute a peculiar class commonly called people of color having a higher social status than that of the blacks but finally classified with all other persons of African blood as Negroes.

While it later became a capital offence in some of the slave States for a Negro man to cohabit with a white woman, Abdy who toured this country from 1833 to 1834 doubted that such laws were enforced. "A man," said he, "was hanged not long ago for this crime at New Orleans. The partner of his guilt—his master's daughter—endeavored to save his life, by avowing that she alone was to blame. She died shortly after his execution."[482] With the white man and the Negro woman the situation was different. A sister of President Madison once said to the Reverend George Bourne, then a Presbyterian minister in Virginia: "We Southern ladies are complimented with the name of wives; but we are only the mistresses of seraglios." The masters of the female slaves, however, were not always the only persons of loose morals. Many women of color were also prostituted to the purposes of young white men [483] and overseers.[484] Goodell reports a well-authenticated account of a respectable Christian lady at the South who kept a handsome mulatto female for the use of her genteel son, as a method of deterring him, as she said, "from indiscriminate and vulgar indulgences."[485] Harriet Martineau discovered a young white man who on visiting a southern lady became insanely enamored of her intelligent quadroon maid. He sought to purchase her but the owner refused to sell the slave because of her unusual worth. The young white man persisted in trying to effect this purchase and finally informed her owner that he could not live without this attractive slave. Thereupon the white lady sold the woman of color to satisfy the lust of her friend.[486]

The accomplishment of this task of reducing the free people of color to the status of the blacks, however, was not easy. In the first place, so many persons of color had risen to positions of usefulness among progressive people and had formed connections with them that an abrupt separation was both inexpedient and undesirable. Exceptions to the hard and fast rules of caste were often made to relieve the people of color. Moreover, the miscegenation of the races in the South and especially in large cities like Charleston and New Orleans had gone to the extent that from these centers eventually went, as they do now, a large number of quadroons and octoroons,[487] who elsewhere crossed over to the other race.

White men ashamed of the planters who abused helpless black women are now trying to minimize the prevalence of this custom. Such an effort, however, means little in the face of the facts that one seventh of the Negroes in the United States had in their veins any amount of Caucasian blood in 1860 and according to the last census more than one fifth of them have this infusion. Furthermore the testimony of travelers in this country during the slavery period support the contention that race admixture was common.[488]

So extensive did it become that the most prominent white men in the country did not escape. Benjamin Franklin seems to have made no secret of his associations with Negro women.[490] Russell connects many of these cases with the master class in Virginia.[491] There are now in Washington Negroes who call themselves the descendants of two Virginians who attained the presidency of the United States.

The abolitionists made positive statements about the mulatto offspring of Thomas Jefferson. Goodell lamented the fact that Jefferson in his will had to entreat the legislature of Virginia to confirm his bequest of freedom to his own reputed enslaved offspring that they might remain in the State of their nativity, where their families and connections were.[492] Writing in 1845, the editor of the Cleveland American expressed regret that notwithstanding all the services and sacrifices of Jefferson in the establishment of the freedom of this country, his own son then living in Ohio was not allowed to vote or bear witness in a court of justice. The editor of the Ohio Star said: "We are not sure whether this is intended as a statement of actual fact, or of what might possibly and naturally enough be true." The Cincinnati Herald inquired: "Is this a fact? If so, it ought to be known. Perhaps 'the Democracy' might be induced to pass a special act in his favor." The Cleveland American, therefore, added: "We are credibly informed that a natural son of Jefferson by the celebrated 'Black Sal,' a person of no little renown in the politics of 1800 and thereafter, is now living in a central county of Ohio. We shall endeavor to get at the truth of the matter and make public the result of our inquiries."[493]

A later report of miscegenation of this kind was recorded by Jane Grey Swisshelm in her Half a Century, where she states that a daughter of President John Tyler "ran away with the man she loved in order that she might be married, but for this they must reach foreign soil. A young lady of the White House could not marry the man of her choice in the United States. The lovers were captured and she was brought to His Excellency, her father, who sold her to a slave-trader. From that Washington slave-pen she was taken to New Orleans by a man who expected to get twenty-five hundred dollars for her on account of her great beauty.[494]

Carter G. Woodson

FOOTNOTES:

[442] MacDonald, Trade, Politics and Christianity in Africa and the East, Chapter on inter-racial marriage, p. 239; and The Journal of Negro History, pp. 329, 334-344.

[443] Report of First Race Congress, 1911, p. 330; MacDonald, Trade, Politics, and Christianity, p. 235; and Contemporary Review, August, 1911.

[444] Report of First Races Congress, 1911, p. 330.

[445] Johnston, The Negro in the New World, p. 98.

[446] Ibid., p. 78.

[447] Ibid., pp. 98-99.

[448] Authorities consider the Amerindians the most fecund stock in the country, especially when mixed with an effusion of white or black blood. Agassiz, A Journey in Brazil in 1868.

[449] Johnston, The Negro in the New World, p. 135.

[450] Code Noir.

[451] Brackett, The Negro in Maryland, pp. 32-33.

[452] Benjamin Banneker's mother was a white woman who married one of her own slaves. See Tyson, Benjamin Banneker, p. 3.

[453] Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of the General Assembly, 1637-1664, pp. 533-534.

[454] Calhoun, A Social History of the American Family, p. 94.

[455] Harris and McHenry Reports, I, pp. 374, 376; II, pp. 26, 38, 214, 233.

[456] Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, VI, pp. 249-250.

[457] McCormac, White Servitude in Maryland, p. 70.

[458] Act of Assembly, Oct., 1727.

[459] Dorsey, The General Public Statutory Law and Public Local Law of State of Maryland, from 1692-1839, p. 79.

[460] Bullagh, White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia, pp. 72, 73.

[461] Hening, The Statutes at Large, I, pp. 146, 532. II, 170; III, pp. 86-88, 252.

[462] Hening, Statutes at Large, VI, pp. 360-362.

[463] Meade, Old Churches and Families of Virginia, I, p. 366.

[464] Russell, Free Negro in Virginia, pp. 138-139.

[465] Bassett, Slavery and Servitude in North Carolina, p. 83.

[466] Ibid., pp. 58-59. See also Natural History of North Carolina, p. 48; and Hawk's History of North Carolina, II, pp. 126-127.

[467] Potter, Revised Laws of North Carolina, I, p. 130.

[468] Ibid., I, p. 157.

[469] Massachusetts Charters, etc., p. 747; Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, VI, p. 262.

[470] Turner, The Negro in Pennsylvania, pp. 29-30.

[471] Ibid., p. 30.

[472] The American Weekly Mercury (Philadelphia), August 20, 1720.

[473] The Pennsylvania Gazette, June 1, 1749.

[474] Statutes at Large, IV, p. 62.

[475] Turner, The Negro in Pennsylvania, p. 31.

[476] Branagan, Serious Remonstrances, pp. 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 102; Somerset Whig, March 12, 1818, and Union Times, August 15, 1834.

[477] Journal of Senate, 1820-1821, p. 213; and American Daily Advertiser, January 23, 1821.

[478] Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1838, X, p. 230.

[479] The Spirit of the Times, October 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 1849.

[480] Harriet Martineau, Views of Slavery and Emancipation, p. 10.

[481] Hart, Slavery and Abolition, p. 182; Censuses of the United States.

[482] Abdy, North America, I, p. 160.

[483] Child, Anti-slavery Catechism, p. 17; 2 Howard Mississippi Reports, p. 837.

[484] Kemble, Georgian Plantation, pp. 140, 162, 199, 208-210; Olmstead, Seaboard States, pp. 599-600; Rhodes, United States, I, pp. 341-343.

[485] Goodell, Slave Code, pp. 111-112.

[486] Harriet Martineau, Views of Slavery and Emancipation, p. 13.

[487] Featherstonaugh, Excursion, p. 141; Buckingham, Slave States, I, p. 358.

[488] Writing of conditions in this country prior to the American Revolution, Anne Grant found only two cases of miscegenation in Albany before this period but saw it well established later by the British soldiers. Johann Schoepf—witnessed this situation in Charleston in 1784. J. P. Brissot saw this tendency toward miscegenation as a striking feature of society among the French in the Ohio Valley in 1788. The Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach was very much impressed with the numerous quadroons and octoroons of New Orleans in 1825 and Charles Gayarré portrayed the same conditions there in 1830. Frederika Bremer frequently met with this class while touring the South in 1850. See Grant, Memoirs of An American Lady, p. 28; Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, II, p. 382; Brissot, Travels, II, p. 61; Saxe-Weimar, Travels, II, p. 69; Grace King, New Orleans, pp. 346-349; Frederika Bremer, Homes of the New World, I, pp. 325, 326, 382, 385.

[489] The American Journal of Sociology, XXII, p. 98.

[490] Ibid., XXII, p. 98.

[491] See Russell, Free Negro in Virginia, p. 127.

[492] Goodell, Slave Code, p. 376.

[493] The Liberator, December 19, 1845.

[494] Swisshelm, Half a Century, p. 129.

GERRIT SMITH'S EFFORT IN BEHALF OF THE NEGROES IN NEW YORK

During the first half of the nineteenth century, the condition of the free Negroes in the Southern States became more and more critical. The doctrine of the rights of man, which had swept over the world in the latter part of the eighteenth century had had its effect on the colonists and resulted in the manumission of many slaves. These freedmen taking advantage of their economic and educational opportunities became an ever increasing menace to the social institutions that had no foundation except that of slavery. Ambitious, often aggressive, they were a constant source of dissatisfaction because of the unhappy comparison of their lot with that of the slaves. They, moreover, encouraged the slaves to improve their condition and to escape to the North. This situation was rendered still more critical for the reason that the South, considering slavery indispensable to its economic life, was already being lashed into a frenzy to gain new slave territory and to strengthen the institution by every possible method of oppression of the blacks. Measures inimical to the economic progress of freedmen were enacted.[495] Many who had been manumitted were seized and again reduced to slavery. Educational opportunities were restricted or denied. Legally they were without voice and hence could secure no redress when wronged.[496]

This economic poverty, insecurity of personal liberty, and absolutely negative political status, impelled the freedmen to find better conditions in the North. The reaction against plantation life and the glittering attractions of the large city with the prospect of earning money less arduously no doubt account for their influx into the industrial centers.[497] These free blacks migrated in great numbers especially to New York and Philadelphia. The Colonization Society attempted to solve the problem by effecting the colonization of the free Negroes somewhere either within or without the United States. Many friends of the Negroes and even some of the Negroes themselves thought favorably of the idea and a few small colonies were formed in the Western States and in Liberia.[498]

Among the anti-slavery men who at first saw no fault in the aims of the Colonization Society was Gerrit Smith. The son of a slave owner in the State of New York, he was acquainted with slavery in the milder form in which it existed in the North. It was just two years before his birth that the legislature of New York passed its act of emancipation providing that all children after the year 1799 should be free, the males on reaching the age of twenty-eight years and the female twenty-five. His father, Peter Smith, was a slaveholder and the owner of extensive lands in the counties of northern New York; and even before his death the management of these vast properties devolved upon his son.

He soon became deeply interested in the uplift of the slaves and endeavored to improve their condition by gradual emancipation looking forward to colonization. As early as 1834, his diary shows a growing belief in the universal right to liberty. Years ripened this belief and also developed his anti-land-monopolist principles, both of which reached fruition in his act of 1846, by which he gave away thousands of acres of land. He severed his connection with the Colonization Society when that body overtly declared that it was not a society for the abolition of slavery nor for the improvement of the blacks nor for the suppression of the slave trade, and he threw his energy into the work of abolition as fervently, if not as drastically, as Garrison.[499]

Anti-land-monopolist as he was, Gerrit Smith believed that the life of the small free farmer was calculated to develop thrift and self respect in the character of the colored freedmen that he saw crowded in sections of the large cities. For although enjoying greater security of personal liberty, the mass of colored people in New York State had not made much economic progress, even to the extent of possessing property valued at two hundred and fifty dollars, which in that State would have entitled them to the right to vote.[500] He said that he had for years indulged the thought that when he had sold enough land to pay his debts, he would give away the remainder to the poor. He was an Agrarian, who wanted every man desirous to own a farm to have one. He, therefore, felt that it was safe to make a beginning in the work of distributing land to individuals. He had theretofore given tracts of land to public institutions and a few small parcels to individuals, but had not entered upon the larger task of making large donations of land to the poor.

He then planned to transfer three thousand parcels of land of forty to sixty acres each during the following three years. To whom among the poor he should make these deeds, was a question he could not hastily solve. He was sure, however, that, inasmuch as his home and the land were both in the State of New York, it would be very suitable to select his beneficiaries from among the people of that State. But for a long time, he was at a loss to decide, whether to take his beneficiaries generally from the meritorious poor or only from the deserving Negroes. He said, "I could not put a bounty on color. I shrank from the least appearance of doing so, and if I know my heart, it was equally compassionate toward such white and black men as are equal sufferers."[501] In the end, however, he concluded to confine his gifts to Negroes.

He would not have come to this conclusion he said, if the land he had to give away had been several times as much as it was, nor if the Negroes, the poorest of the poor, had not been the most deeply wronged class of the citizens. "That they are so," said he, "is evident, if only from the fact, that the cruel, killing, Heaven-defying prejudice of which they are victims, has closed against them the avenues to riches and respectability—to happiness and usefulness. That they are so, is also evident from the fact, that, whilst white men in this State, however destitute of property, are allowed to vote for Civil Rulers, every colored man in it who does not own landed estate to the value of two-hundred and fifty dollars, is excluded from the exercise of this natural and indispensably protective right."[502] He confessed that he was influenced by the consideration that there was great encouragement to improve the condition of the Negroes, because every amelioration in it contributed to loosen the bands of the enslaved portion of their outraged and afflicted race.

He, therefore, requested Reverend Theodore S. Wright, Reverend Charles B. Ray, and Dr. J. McCune Smith, three representative Negroes of New York City, to make out a list of the Negroes who should receive from him parcels of land. His only restrictions upon them in making this selection were that they should choose no person younger than twenty-one and no person older than sixty; that they accept no person who was in easy circumstances as to property; and no one who was already the owner of land, and no drunkards.[503] He further promised to pay all taxes as well as purchase money and interest due to the State of New York hoping that none of the parcels would be sold for the nonpayment of taxes.[504] The total number of colonists were to be one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five, to be distributed as follows: in the county of Suffolk, 127; Queens, 215; Kings, 197; New York, 861; Richmond, 832; Rockland, 331; Westchester, 115; Dutchess, 150; Sullivan, 5; Ulster, 106; Orange, 136; and Putnam, 10. Although this distribution was suggested the actual grants seem to have been made in the counties of Franklin, Essex, Hamilton, Fulton, Oneida, Delaware, Madison and Ulster.

On September 9, 1846, he wrote again to three gentlemen of color, saying that a thousand of the deeds were already in the hands of the committee for distribution. He had saved them the expense of securing the certificate of the County Clerk by having the acknowledgment of the execution taken by a Supreme Court judge. The only expense left for the beneficiaries to bear was the recording of the deed. The letter closed with a request that the three gentlemen prepare and send out a circular among the persons receiving the deeds, making known to them the conditions and reasons which actuated him in bestowing the land. This was done and the recipients were exhorted to profit by the chance to become land owners and thereby secure their right to vote.

These lands, as Smith realized and admitted, were not all arable but many of them had considerable timber. Such property today would be considered valuable, but in those days of plentitude it passed as undesirable. Some of his enemies accused him of making for himself a reputation for generosity by giving away useless land. There is no evidence, however, that such accusations were made by the Negroes.[505] But be that as it may, the experiment was a failure. It was not successful because of the intractability of the land, the harshness of the climate, and in a great measure, the inefficiency of the settlers. They had none of the qualities of farmers. Furthermore, having been disabled by infirmities and vices they could not as beneficiaries answer the call of the benefactor. Peterboro, the town opened to Negroes in this section did maintain a school and served as a station of the underground railroad but the agricultural results expected of the enterprise never materialized.[506] The main trouble in this case was the impossibility of substituting something foreign for individual enterprise.

The failure of the enterprise did not cause this philanthropist to cease his activities in behalf of freedom and justice to the Negroes. He continued a staunch abolitionist, demanding unconditional emancipation of the slaves and leaving undone nothing which might effect this change. He was once intimately associated with John Brown, who at one time left his home and purchased from Smith a farm in the Negro colony in order to live with the blacks and help them to improve their economic condition. Smith lived until 1874, long enough to see the Negroes freed and many of them making elsewhere that economic progress which was the dream of his earlier years.

Zita Dyson

FOOTNOTES:

[495] See the session laws of the State Legislatures, and Woodson's Education of the Negro Prior to 1861, pp. 151-178.

[496] Goodell, Slave Code, and Hurd, The Law of Freedom and Bondage, II, pp. 1-218.

[497] Woodson, A Century of Negro Migration, Chapter II.

[498] The Journal of Negro History, I, p. 276; II, p. 209.

[499] Frothingham, Gerrit Smith, pp. 94-143.

[500] Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, II, p. 56.

[501] Frothingham, Gerrit Smith, p. 103.

[502] Frothingham, Gerrit Smith, 104.

[503] Letter of Gerrit Smith to Theodore S. Wright, Charles B. Ray, and J. McCune Smith.

[504] Ibid.

[505] Special Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education on the Schools of the District of Columbia, 1871, p. 367; The African Repository, X. p. 312.

[506] Frothingham, Gerrit Smith, p. 73.

THE BUXTON SETTLEMENT IN CANADA

The Buxton, or Elgin Association Settlement, in Kent county, western Ontario, was in many respects the most important attempt made before the Civil War to found a Negro refugee colony in Canada. In population, material wealth and general organization it was outstanding, and the firm foundation upon which it was established is shown by the fact that today, more than half a century after emancipation, it is still a prosperous and distinctly Negro settlement.

The western peninsula of Ontario, lying between Lakes Huron and Erie, was long the Mecca of the fugitive slave. Bounded on the east by the State of New York, on the west by Michigan, and on the south by Ohio and northwestern Pennsylvania, this was the part of Canada most easily reached by the fugitive; and Niagara, Cleveland, Detroit and other lake ports saw thousands of refugees cross narrow strips of water to "shake the lion's paw" and find freedom in the British queen's dominions. During the forties and fifties there was a constant stream of refugees into Canada. As many as thirty in a day would cross the Detroit River at Fort Malden alone. Many of these went to the cities and towns, but others found greater happiness in the separate Negro communities which grew up here and there.

The history of the Buxton settlement, one of these, is closely linked with the name of Rev. William King. King was a native of Londonderry, Ireland, a graduate of Glasgow College, who had emigrated to the United States and become rector of a college in Louisiana. Later he returned to Scotland, studied theology in the Free Church College, Edinburgh, and in 1846 was sent out to Canada as a missionary of the Free Church of Scotland. While he was living in Louisiana he became, through marriage, the owner of fifteen slaves of an estimated value of $9,000. For a time he placed them on a neighboring plantation and gave them the proceeds of their labor but that did not satisfy his conscience and in 1848 he brought them to Canada, thereby automatically giving them their freedom. His effort on their behalf did not end here. Having brought them to this new country, he felt it a duty to look after them, to educate and make of them useful citizens. The same thing, he believed, could be done for others in like circumstance.

The first effort to secure a tract of land for the refugees was made by the Rev. Mr. King as the representative of the Presbyterian Church. This application was before the Executive Council of the Canadian Government in September, 1848, but was not successful. Steps were at once taken to organize a non-sectarian body to deal with the government and this new body took the name of the Elgin Association in honor of the then governor-general of the Canadas who seems to have been well disposed toward the refugees. The Elgin Association was legally incorporated "for the settlement and moral improvement of the colored population of Canada, for the purpose of purchasing crown or clergy reserve lands in the township of Raleigh and settling the same with colored families resident in Canada of approved moral character."[507] Rev. Dr. Connor was the first president; Rev. Dr. Willis, of Knox College, Toronto, first vice-president, and Rev. William King, second vice-president. J. T. Matthews was the secretary, J. S. Howard, treasurer, while the original directors were E. A. T. McCord, Walter McFarland, Peter Freland, Charles Bercsy, W. R. Abbott, John Laidlaw, E. F. Whittesend and James Brown. These are the names that appear upon the petition to the government for lands, the original of which is in the Dominion Archives.

There were difficulties in securing the land. Decided opposition to the whole project made itself manifest in Kent county.[508] In Chatham, the county town, a meeting of protest was held. The plans of the Elgin Association were condemned and a resolution was passed setting forth objections to selling any of the public domain "to foreigners, the more so when such persons belong to a different branch of the human family and are black." A vigilance committee was appointed to watch the operations of the Elgin Association while the various township councils interested were requested to advance the necessary funds for carrying on the campaign. That there was some dissent, however, even in Chatham is shown by the fact that one Henry Gouins was allowed to speak in favor of the Association. The vigilance committee soon issued a small pamphlet, made up chiefly of the speeches and resolutions of the public meeting. The name of Edwin Larwill, member of Parliament for the county of Kent, appears as one of those most active in opposition to the settlement plan. Larwill had a record for hostility to the colored people though at election times he was accustomed to parade as their friend. In 1856 he introduced in the House of Assembly a most insulting resolution [509] calling for a report from the government on "all negro or colored, male or female quadroon, mulatto, samboes, half breeds or mules, mongrels or conglomerates" in public institutions. Larwill was at once called to account for his action and a resolution was introduced calling upon him to retract.

The opposition of Larwill and his supporters failed to impede the progress of the Association and a tract of about 9000 acres, lying to the south of Chatham and within a mile or two of Lake Erie, was purchased. This was surveyed and divided into small farms of fifty acres each, roads were cut through the dense forest and the first settlers began the arduous work of clearing. The colonists were allowed to take up fifty acres each at a price of $2.50 per acre, payable in ten annual instalments.[510] Each settler was bound within a certain period to build a house at least as good as the model house set up by the Association, to provide himself with necessary implements and to proceed with the work of clearing land. The model house after which nearly all the dwellings were copied was 18 by 24 feet, 12 feet in height and with a stoop running the length of the front. Some of the settlers were ambitious enough to build larger and better houses but there were none inferior to the model. The tract of country upon which the settlers were located was an almost unbroken forest. The ground was level, heavily timbered with oak, hickory, beech, elm, etc. Part of the soil was a deep rich black loam. Trees two to four feet in diameter were common and the roads cut through to open up settlement were hardly more than wide lanes. Rev. Mr. King thought that one reason for the colony's success was the fact that so many of the settlers were good axe men. Their industry was remarkable and some of the more industrious paid for their land in five or six years and took up more to clear.[511]

There are several contemporary references to the sobriety and morality of the colonists. The New York Tribune correspondent in 1857 was able to report that liquor was neither made nor sold in the colony and that drunkenness was unknown. There was no illegitimacy and there had been but one arrest for violation of the Canadian laws in the seven years of the colony's history. Though the Presbyterian church gave special attention to the Buxton colony this did not hinder the growth of other sects, Methodists and Baptists both being numerous, though the best of feeling seems to have prevailed and many who retained their own connection were fairly regular attendants at Mr. King's services.

The Tribune article gives an interesting description of the homes. The cabins, though rough and rude, were covered with vines and creepers with bright flowers and vegetable gardens round about. Despite the pioneer conditions there abounded comfort and plenty of plain homemade furniture. Pork, potatoes and green corn were staple items of the menu. Of King's former slaves the Tribune reports that three had died, nine were at Buxton, one was married and living in Chatham and two others in Detroit were about to return. The Tribune reports on one case as typical of what was being achieved by the colony. A colored man, fourteen years before a slave in Missouri and who had been at Buxton six years, reported that he had 24 acres out of his plot cleared, fenced and under cultivation. On six acres more the trees were felled. He had paid four installments on his farm, owned a yoke of oxen, a wagon and a mare and two colts. His fourteen-year-old boy was at school and was reading Virgil. In the home, besides bed and bedding, chairs and tables, there was a rocking chair and a large, new safe. Water was brought to the visitor in a clean tumbler, set upon a plate. A neighboring cabin had carpet on the floor and some crude prints on the walls. All the cabins had large brick fireplaces. Rev. Mr. King's own house, built of logs with high steep roof, dormer windows and a porch the whole length, was somewhat larger than the others.[512]

What these people actually accomplished at Buxton amid conditions so different from what they had known in the past is altogether remarkable. Some had known little of farm work before coming to the colony while all of them must have found the Canadian climate something of a hardship even in the summer. Outside of the farm work they showed ability as mechanics and tradesmen. One who visited them in the fifties says:[513]

"The best country tavern in Kent is kept by Mr. West, at Buxton. Mr. T. Stringer is one of the most enterprising tradesmen in the county, and he is a Buxtonian, a colored man. I broke my carriage near there. The woodwork, as well as the iron, was broken. I never had better repairing done to either the woodwork or the ironwork of my carriage, I never had better shoeing than was done to my horses, in Buxton, in Feb., 1852, by a black man, a native of Kentucky—in a word, the work was done after the pattern of Charles Peyton Lucas. They are blessed with able mechanics, good farmers, enterprising men, and women worthy of them and they are training the rising generation to principles such as will give them the best places in the esteem and the service of their countrymen at some day not far distant."

A few years sufficed to remove most of the prejudice that had shown itself in the opposition of the Larwill faction at Chatham at the inception of the colony. When Rev. S. R. Ward visited the colony in the early fifties he found that instead of lowering land values of adjoining property as some had predicted would result from establishing a Negro colony in Kent county, the Buxton settlement had actually raised the value of adjoining farms. The Buxton settlers were spoken of by the white people as good farmers, good customers and good neighbors. There were white children attending the Buxton school and white people in their Sunday church services.

Perhaps no finer testimony to the success of the whole undertaking is recorded than that of Dr. Samuel R. Howe who came to Canada for the Freedmen's Inquiry Committee.

"Buxton is certainly a very interesting place," he wrote. "Sixteen years ago it was a wilderness. Now, good highways are laid out in all directions through the forest, and by their side, standing back 33 feet from the road, are about 200 cottages, all built in the same pattern, all looking neat and comfortable; around each one is a cleared place of several acres which is well cultivated. The fences are in good order, the barns seem well filled, and cattle and horses, and pigs and poultry, abound. There are signs of industry and thrift and comfort everywhere; signs of intemperance, of idleness, of want nowhere. There is no tavern and no groggery; but there is a chapel and a schoolhouse. Most interesting of all are the inhabitants. Twenty years ago most of them were slaves, who owned nothing, not even their children. Now they own themselves; they own their houses and farms; and they have their wives and children about them. They are enfranchised citizens of a government which protects their rights.... The present condition of all these colonists as compared with their former one is remarkable.... This settlement is a perfect success. Here are men who were bred in slavery, who came here and purchased land at the government price, cleared it, bought their own implements, built their own houses after a model and have supported themselves in all material circumstances and now support their schools in part.... I consider that this settlement has done as well as a white settlement would have done under the same circumstances."[514]

The Buxton settlement had its part in the John Brown affair. A letter written by John Brown, Jr., from Sandusky, Ohio, August 27, 1859, and addressed to "Friend Henrie," (Kagi), speaks of men in Hamilton, Chatham, Buxton, etc., suitable for the enterprise.

"At Dr. W's house (presumably in Hamilton) we formed an association," he says, "the officers consisting of chairman, treasurer and corresponding secretary, the business of which is to hunt up good workmen and raise the means among themselves to send them forward.... No minutes of the organization nor any of its proceedings are or will be preserved in writing. I formed similar associations in Chat—and also at B-x-t-n."

John Brown, Jr., also speaks of going to Buxton where he found "the man, the leading spirit in that affair."

"On Thursday night last" said he, "I went with him on foot 12 miles; much of the way through mere paths and sought out in the bush some of the choicest. Had a meeting after ten o'clock at night in his house. His wife is a heroine and he will be on hand as soon as his family can be provided for."[515]

Such is the earlier history of the experiment in Canada of taking bondmen and placing before them the opportunity not alone to make a living in freedom but also to rise in the social scale. How well these people took advantage of their opportunity is shown not only by the material progress they made but by the fact that they gained for themselves the respect of their white neighbors, a respect that continues today for their many descendants who still comprise the Buxton community in Kent county, Ontario.

Fred Landon

Public Librarian, London, Canada, and Lecturer in American History in Western University, London.

FOOTNOTES:

[507] Drew, A North-Side View of Slavery, 1856, p. 292.

[508] Documents in Canadian Archives Department.

[509] Toronto Weekly Globe, January 1, 1858.

[510] Drew, A North-Side View of Slavery, 1856, pp. 292-293.

[511] The slaves who had been freed by Mr. King formed the nucleus of the colony but others came as soon as the land was thrown open. The advances made by this colony during the first years of its existence were remarkable. The third annual report for the year 1852, showed a population of 75 families or 400 inhabitants, with 350 acres of land cleared and 204 acres under cultivation. A year later, the fourth annual report showed 130 families or 520 persons, with 500 acres of land cleared and 135 partially cleared, 415 acres being under cultivation in 1853. The live stock was given as 128 cattle, 15 horses, 30 sheep and 250 hogs. The day school had 112 children enrolled and the Sabbath School 80.

The fifth report, for the year 1854, showed 150 families in the colony or immediately adjoining it, 726 acres of land cleared, 174 acres partially cleared and 577 acres under cultivation. In the year there had been an increase of cleared land amounting to 226 acres and of land under cultivation of 162 acres. The livestock consisted of 150 cattle and oxen, 38 horses, 25 sheep and 700 hogs. The day school had 147 on the roll and the Sabbath School 120. A second day school was opened that year.

The sixth annual report (1855) shows 827 acres of land cleared and fenced and 216 acres chopped and to go under cultivation in 1856. There were 810 acres cultivated that year while the live stock consisted of 190 cattle and oxen, 40 horses, 38 sheep and 600 hogs. The day school had an enrollment of 150. Among the advances of this year was the erection of a saw and grist mill which supplied the colony with lumber and with flour and feed. The building of the saw mill meant added prosperity, for an estimate made in 1854 placed the value of the standing timber at $127,000.

A representative of the New York Tribune visited the colony in 1857 and his description of what he saw was reprinted in the Toronto Globe of November 20, 1857. The colony was then seven years old and had a population of about 200 families or 800 souls. More than 1,000 acres had been completely cleared while on 200 acres more the trees had been felled and the land would be put under cultivation the next spring. The acreage under cultivation in the season of 1857 he gives as follows: corn, 354 acres; wheat, 200 acres; oats, 70 acres; potatoes, 80 acres; other crops, 120 acres. The live stock consisted of 200 cows, 80 oxen, 300 hogs, 52 horses and a small number of sheep. The industries included a steam sawmill, a brickyard, pearl ash factory, blacksmith, carpenter and shoe shops as well as a good general store. There were two schools, one male and one female. The latter, which had been open only about a year, taught plain sewing and other domestic subjects. The two schools had a combined enrollment of 140 with average attendance of 58. It was being proposed to require a small payment in order to make the schools self-supporting. The Sabbath school had an enrollment of 112 and an average attendance of 52.—Drew, A North-Side View of Slavery, pp. 293-297.

[512] The New York Tribune.

[513] Ward, Autobiography of a Fugitive Negro, 1855, p. 214.

[514] Howe, Refugees from Slavery in Canada West, 1864, pp. 70-71.

[515] Toronto Weekly Globe, November 4, 1859.

FIFTY YEARS OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY [516]

Part II

The crisis in the financial affairs of the University, already mentioned, was the natural result of over confidence in the readiness of philanthropists to rally to the aid of a needy cause. This disappointment, however, was a valuable experience, for it became clear that philanthropists were not inclined to grant very generous aid to an institution established under the patronage of the Federal Government, especially in the face of the frequent and insistent appeals from less fortunate institutions serving the same people. It was an incorrect assumption, however, that the United States Treasury was paying the current expenses, for it must be remembered that no part of the original grants of the Freedmen's Bureau was or could be invested as permanent endowment or used for salaries, equipment or maintenance; and that during the first decade of the existence of the University no public funds were appropriated for these purposes. In spite of this, its reputation as a ward of the United States Government was, to its great disadvantage, accepted by philanthropists as justified.

When, in 1873, the Freedmen's Bureau was abolished, General Howard resigned from the presidency of the University to enter the army. Not desiring to accept his resignation immediately, however, the trustees granted him an indefinite leave of absence.[517] At the same meeting it was decided to revive the office of Vice-President, which had been discontinued and John M. Langston, then Dean of the Howard Law School, was elected to that position. "It had been hoped," says one, "that the experiment of placing an able colored man in this high position would stimulate his own race and the minds of white philanthropists to sustain the institution in its perilous struggles." But the lack of funds continued. Convinced that a permanent president must be at once secured, Mr. Langston resigned the vice-presidency in 1875.

An unfortunate combination of conditions that might well baffle the ablest administrators then obtained. The outlook was so gloomy that it was difficult to find a person both capable and willing to succeed to the position left vacant. Upon Mr. Langston's resignation, Reverend George Whipple, Secretary of the American Missionary Association was elected president but after due consideration declined the honor. On December 16, 1875, Edward P. Smith, a trustee of the University and a member of the Executive Committee, was elected. After serving a few weeks he departed on an expedition for the American Missionary Association to the west coast of Africa where he died, June 15, 1875. Meanwhile Senator Pomeroy acted as chairman of the board of trustees and Professor Frederick W. Fairfield served efficiently as acting president, having supervision over matters purely educational. This was the period of the most rigid retrenchment in expenses.

But Howard was to find a way out of this difficulty and move onward. The second epoch in the history of the University began when, on April 25, 1876, the Reverend Doctor William W. Patton was elected president. His administration, lasting over a term of twelve years, was a period of recovery and consolidation, and an era of good feeling. Dr. Patton came to his task equipped with just the qualities needed at that time. He possessed intense sympathy for the ideals for which the University stands; sufficient business ability to keep its finances safe; and a personality that inspired respect, confidence and love.

Carefully administering the affairs of the institution, Dr. Patton was able to restore confidence in the minds of the public and of Congress. This accomplished, he was justified in arguing for federal aid on the ground that through this means alone was it possible to make the best use of the large and expensive plant which the Government had already provided. The result was that for the year beginning July 1, 1879, Congress appropriated $10,000 toward current expenses. Since that date appropriations have been regularly made and have so increased that the institution now receives from the United States Government an annual allowance of over $100,000.

It was during the administration of Dr. Patton that Howard University rounded out its organization and developed as a university. Previously, however, the various departments particularly had made interesting history. An active faculty was organized in the Medical School, June 17, 1867, and the first session opened in November, 1868, in the same rented building already referred to as housing the first academic classes of the University.[518] Here lectures were given in the evening to a class of eight students. The permanent Medical Building was then in the course of erection. Under an able faculty and with excellent facilities it is not surprising that the Medical School has been able to maintain a very high standard of efficiency and that it now meets fully the requirements of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The Law Department was organized October 12, 1868, with Mr. John M. Langston [519] as professor and dean. In December of the same year, A. G. Riddle was associated with him on the faculty and the school began actual instruction on January 6, 1869.[520] During the years of the financial difficulties of the University, however, the Law School passed through a distressing experience. The attendance of the students was uncertain, falling off rapidly when the Freedmen's Bureau passed out of existence; for many of the students who were employees serving the Bureau during the day attended lectures at night. These left in large numbers when the Bureau closed, depriving the Law School of a part of its estimated income. Losing thus this revenue, this department was either actually suspended or barely kept open with a single teacher and a handful of students. Mr. Langston retained his position as dean under the then trying conditions until 1874, when he resigned.

The department gradually recovered with the mending fortunes of the University under President Patton and as a result of the demand in the District of Columbia for a school of law admitting students without racial restrictions. In 1881 B. F. Leighton was appointed to the deanship of this department, a position which he has to the present time filled with marked success. He took charge of the department when it was barely existing and brought it to its present position of usefulness. For many years he had associated with him A. A. Birney one of the most distinguished members of the District of Columbia bar. From that reconstruction of the department dates the period of its real growth. In 1881 these two professors lectured to a class of seven students, five of whom were graduated at the close of the session. Since that time the courses have been broadened in keeping with the advancing standards of legal study, the student body has increased ten fold and the faculty has been strengthened in accordance with these demands.

Although the Theological Department was the first in the plan of the founders of the University, it was not put into operation until January 6, 1868, when D. B. Nichols and E. W. Robinson, both clergymen, began without pay, to give theological instruction twice a week to a number of men already accredited as preachers and others looking forward to that work. Shortly afterwards, at the request of the Board of Trustees, a course of study was drawn up and adopted. Lectures in accordance with this plan were started immediately thereafter by General Eliphalet Whittlesey.[521] It was not until 1871, however, that the Theological Department was officially announced by the University as actively in operation. In this announcement, Dr. John B. Reeve is named as dean, supported by a faculty of four lecturers and a roster of twelve students. Three years later in 1874, seven of these twelve students received their certificates of graduation.

The Theological Department has always been barred from the use of United States funds for its current expenses and has, therefore, depended upon scholarships and special contributions made by individuals and philanthropic organizations. The American Missionary Association has always been its chief support since the crisis of 1873. Because of the financial stress under which the University was working at that time, the first act of Dr. Lorenzo Wescott, the new dean appointed in 1875, was to make arrangements to have the Presbytery of Washington assume the responsibility of the school. This appeal was favorably acted upon and a committee of the Presbytery took charge of the affairs of the department in December, 1875. This step was rendered necessary because, from 1872 to 1874 the American Missionary Association, on account of financial embarrassment, was compelled, temporarily, to withdraw its support. In November, 1877, this organization was again able to resume part of the responsibility and the bodies worked in harmony until June, 1887, when the American Missionary Association was again ready to bear the entire expense.[522]

Dr. Patton resigned in May, 1889, but consented to continue in office until the end of the year or until his successor should be elected. The selection of his successor was made in November and Dr. Patton retired, hoping to rest and do literary work. He died, however, on the last day of the year 1889. On November 15, 1889, the trustees elected the Reverend Doctor Jeremiah E. Rankin [523] to the presidency, taking him from the pastorate of the First Congregational Church of Washington. His term of office extended through thirteen years, a period of slow but steady growth.

Under President Rankin other changes were made in the course of the development of the University. At the close of the session in 1899 the University altered its policy with reference to the work of training teachers. To this end the work of the Normal Department, at first provided for this purpose, was reorganized as the pedagogical department of the college under the deanship of Professor Lewis B. Moore who had come to the faculty five years prior to this time from the University of Pennsylvania, where he had pursued graduate studies and obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After several years of growth the department was designated as the Teachers College and given academic rank with the College of Arts and Sciences. When the Normal Department was discontinued the English Department was established to care for those who wished to pursue the common branches without professional aim. In 1903, it was merged with the newly established Commercial Department under Dean George W. Cook.

It was during this administration that with funds obtained as private donations the permanent residence for the president and the Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel were erected, the former costing approximately $20,000 and the latter $22,000. The chapel is a memorial to the one whose name it bears, Andrew E. Rankin, the brother of President Rankin and the deceased husband of Mrs. H. T. Cushman of Boston, a generous donor toward its erection.

Because of failing health Doctor Rankin resigned in 1903. Reverend Teunis N. Hamlin, pastor of the Church of the Covenant, Washington, District of Columbia, and the president of the board of trustees, served as acting president for a short time pending the selection of a permanent incumbent. The Reverend Doctor John Gordon, the president of Tabor College in Iowa was selected for the presidency and was formally inaugurated in 1904. It was hoped that the incoming president would infuse new life into the institution, for the occasion demanded a successful administrator, an efficient educator and a man able to command increased financial support for the institution. As Doctor Gordon had none of these qualities, it soon became evident that he would be able to accomplish little of benefit to the University. He failed entirely to understand its mission and its ideals. Serious friction between the president on the one hand and the faculty and students on the other grew to such proportions that Dr. Gordon, after a term of office covering a little over two years, resigned.

After an examination of available material in the search for a suitable man for this position, the trustees were happy in the selection of the Reverend Doctor Wilbur P. Thirkield [524] who accepted the offer and took up the duties of president in 1906. He was inaugurated November 15, 1907, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the institution. With this ceremony began an infusion of new life into Howard University. Advantage of this occasion was taken to introduce the institution concretely to a group of notables who had hitherto known of it only in a casual way. And having once brought the institution to the attention of the world, President Thirkield never allowed the world to forget it.

With keen insight he realized at the very beginning of his term of office that the great and basic need of the University was material expansion. He saw the need of a more extensive plant with modern equipment and served by a larger faculty. With characteristic energy he sought to bring the University into a still closer alliance with the Federal Government. So successfully was the case presented that during his administration of six years he succeeded in raising the annual Congressional appropriation for current expenses from less than $50,000 in 1906 to over $100,000 in 1912. The pressing need for facilities in the teaching of the sciences was met by the erection in 1910 of a science hall from special appropriations amounting to $80,000.[525] In 1909, the Carnegie Library was erected. This building was the gift of Mr. Andrew Carnegie and cost $50,000.

About this time the improvement of the dormitories was begun by the installation of adequate systems of sanitary plumbing and electric lights. By arrangement with Freedmen's Hospital the heating and lighting plant was enlarged at a cost of approximately $100,000 to such capacity that steam and current were supplied to all the University buildings. In addition to these improvements in housing and equipment, the grounds were improved and beautified in accordance with a definite scheme.[526] To provide for the constantly growing work in technical and industrial branches the Hall of Applied Sciences was built in 1913 at a cost of $25,000 thus releasing the old Spaulding Hall for other purposes. A special department of music under Miss Lulu Vere Childers was established in 1909 and given a building in 1916.

Possibly the most striking result of the educational awakening under President Thirkield was the rapid growth of the College Department. In 1876 for example, the roster of the department shows thirty-five students and four graduates. In 1907, forty years later, the corresponding figures were, seventy-five and eight, a gain of about one hundred per cent in forty years or two and a half per cent a year. In 1911 these figures had grown to two hundred and forty-three, and thirty-one respectively, a gain during the period of six years covered by this administration, of about two hundred and forty per cent in students and nearly three hundred per cent in graduates. This is approximately a gain per year of forty per cent in enrollment and forty-eight per cent in graduates. While much of this remarkable growth is due to the general awakening of the University, yet no small part of the credit belongs to the inspiration of Professor Kelly Miller who became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 1907 near the beginning of the period under consideration. Through his efforts and reputation as a writer the claims of the University and the College of Arts and Sciences were brought to the attention of aspiring youth throughout the country.[527] Upon the resignation of Dr. Thirkield to become Bishop of the Methodist Church in 1912, the Reverend Doctor Stephen M. Newman was chosen as the head of the university. He has served in that position for five years.[528]

Serviceable as have been many of the educators connected with Howard University it has had and still has many problems. Its chief difficulty, however, is a financial one. Although it is impossible to figure out how the University could have succeeded without the aid of the United States Government, this connection of the institution has been in some respects a handicap. National aid seems to have permanently excluded the institution from the circle of the beneficiaries of those great philanthropic agencies which have played such a prominent part in the support of education during the last half century. With the exception of the Theological Department, which receives no part whatever of the Congressional appropriation, the income to the institution from benevolent sources has played but a minor part in its development. On the other hand, the United States Government has never appropriated sufficient funds to maintain the University as a first class institution. The present appropriation of $100,000 a year falls far short of what the school needs to function properly. It seems, therefore, that the United States Government, should adequately support the institution and make its appropriations legally permanent.[529]

Some remarks about the general policy of Howard University may be enlightening. The idea of racial representation among the administrative officers and faculty is indicated by the fact that membership in a particular race has never been considered a qualification for any position in the University. For many years the board of trustees has had persons of both races as members. No colored man has served a regular term as president, however, unless we include the short experience of Professor Langston already referred to. The treasurer has always been white but the office of secretary has been filled by members of both races. Neither the Theological nor the Medical School has had a Negro as dean although Dr. Charles B. Purvis was elected to that office in the latter in 1900 but declined it.

The faculties of all departments are mixed, the proportion of Negroes growing as available material from which to choose becomes more abundant. The policy of maintaining mixed faculties, however, is not dictated entirely by the lack of men and women of color competent to fill all positions on the faculty; for today the supply of such material is adequate. It seems that the governing body considers it in the best interest of the University to preserve the racial mixture in the offices and faculties in order that the students may receive the peculiar contribution of both races and that the institution may have its interests concretely connected with those of the dominant race.

Whether or not Howard has amply justified its existence during its first half century; whether its ideals have been the best for the race whose interests it primarily serves; whether its administrative policies have been wise—these are questions whose answers lie outside the scope of this sketch. As institutions of learning go, fifty years is a short time upon which to base conclusions. It is a period of beginnings. With schools of the character of Howard, with its peculiar duties to perform and its peculiar problems to solve in a field entirely new, these fifty years make up a period of experiment. Whatever the future relative to this educational experiment may be, Howard has given to America nearly four thousand graduates from its various departments most of whom are now doing the class of work in all fields of endeavor which demand trained minds, broad human sympathy and the spirit of service.

Dwight O. W. Holmes.

FOOTNOTES:

[516] Part I of Fifty Years of Howard University appeared in the April Number of the Journal of Negro History.

[517] The resignation was accepted the following year after General Howard had been appointed to the command of the Department of the Columbia.

[518] It was realized at the beginning that a hospital in connection with the department was an absolute necessity. This was provided for through the relationship established between the Medical School and Freedmen's Hospital. The Campbell Hospital, as it was formerly called, was located, at the close of the war, at what is now the northeast corner of Seventh Street and Florida Avenue. Prior to that time it was directly connected with the War Department. In 1865, in connection with the various hospitals and camps for freedmen in the several States, it was placed under the Freedmen's Bureau. In 1869 it was moved to buildings expressly erected for it by the Bureau upon ground belonging to the University on Pomeroy Street, including and adjacent to the site of the Medical Building. This new home consisted of four large frame buildings of two stories each to be used as wards; and in addition the Medical Building itself, a brick structure of four and one half stories, quite commodious and well arranged with lecture halls and laboratories for medical instruction. Dr. Robert Reyburn, who was chief medical officer of the Freedmen's Bureau from 1870 to 1872 was surgeon in chief, from 1868 to 1875. He was followed in order by Drs. Gideon S. Palmer, Charles B. Purvis, Daniel H. Williams, Austin M. Curtis and Wm. H. Warfield. Dr. Warfield, the present incumbent was appointed in 1901 and is the first graduate of the Howard University Medical School to hold this position. Only the first two named, however, were white. In 1907 the hospital was moved to its new home in the reservation lying on the south side of College Street between Fourth and Sixth Streets, the property of the University.

"The new Freedmen's Hospital was then built at a cost of $600,000. It has the great advantage of being designed primarily for teaching purposes, as practically all the patients admitted are utilized freely for instruction. The hospital has about three hundred beds and contains two clinical amphitheatres, a pathological laboratory, clinical laboratory and a room for X-Ray diagnostic work and X-Ray therapy. The Medical Faculty practically constitutes the Hospital Staff."—Howard University Catalog, 1916-17, p. 163; 1917-18, p. 168.

[519] Mr. Langston was graduated at Oberlin with the degree of A.B. in 1852 and in theology in 1853. He studied law privately and was admitted to practice in Ohio in 1854. In April, 1867, he was appointed general inspector of the Freedmen's Bureau, serving for two years, during which he travelled extensively through the South. From 1877 to 1885 he was Minister to Haiti and from 1885 to 1887 President of the Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute. He was elected to Congress from the Fourth District of Virginia and seated, September 23, 1890, after a contest. He died November 15, 1897, at his home near Howard University.

[520] For a number of years after its organization the school held its sessions in the main building of the University. Later a more convenient location was secured in the building occupied by the Second National Bank on Seventh Street. After remaining there for a considerable period, it moved to Lincoln Hall, at Ninth and D Streets, where it remained until 1887 when the building was destroyed by fire. The authorities then decided to purchase for the department a permanent home conveniently located and adequate to its accommodation. As a result the present Law Building on Fifth Street, opposite the District Court House, was purchased, and fitted up for school purposes.

[521] General Eliphalet Whittlesey was Colonel of the 46th United States Colored Regiment in 1865. He had been on the staff of General Howard during the last year of the campaign through the South and was brevetted Brigadier General at the close of the war. He was Assistant Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau and later Adjutant General under General Howard at Washington. He assisted in the selection of the site for the University, was the first professor in the College Department and organized the Department of Theology.

Reverend Danforth B. Nichols, whose name has appeared frequently in this sketch, was, at the close of the war, engaged in missionary work among the "contrabands" who tilled the abandoned lands just across the Potomac from Washington. When Howard University was founded he was one of the most active and enthusiastic workers for the successful launching of the venture. Beside being a founder, a trustee and a professor, he received the degree of M.D. with the first class graduated by its medical department.

[522] While the Presbytery was in charge the department received a gift or $5,000 from Mrs. Hannah B. Toland. In 1879 Reverend J. G. Craighead became dean of the department and filled the position until his resignation in 1891. During his administration the department received $5,000 from the estate of Wm. E. Dodge of New York. On October 1, 1883, the treasurer of the University was authorized to pay the American Missionary Association $15,000, "out of moneys due from the United States as compensation for University land taken for the reservoir," or such part as might be requisite to complete the endowment of the "Stone Professorship" in the Theological Department. This amount was added to a fund of $25,000 which came from the estate of Daniel P. Stone, of Boston, Massachusetts, upon the fulfillment of the term of the gift.

[523] Dr. Rankin was a writer and poet of note, his most famous production being the hymn, "God be with you till we meet again."

[524] Dr. Thirkield received his A.M. degree from Ohio Wesleyan in 1879. He studied theology at Boston University, graduating with the degree of S.T.B. in 1881. He entered the ministry in the M. E. Church in 1878. As the first president of Gammon Theological Seminary, Atlanta, Georgia, from 1883 to 1899 he secured endowment for that institution to the amount of $600,000. He was called to the presidency of Howard after several years of successful service first as General Secretary of the Epworth League and later as General Secretary of the Freedmen's Aid and Southern Educational Society.

[525] This building was dedicated as "Science Hall" but by vote of the trustees the name was changed to "Thirkield Hall" in honor of President Thirkield when the latter resigned in 1912.

[526] Much of the credit for the improvements to grounds and buildings is due to the experience and business acumen of Professor George W. Cook who became secretary and business manager in 1908. Professor Cook has enjoyed an extensive and unique connection with the University from his matriculation in the Preparatory Department in 1873 to the present. He is a graduate of three departments and holds the degrees of A.B., A.M., LL.B. and LL.M. He has been dean of the Normal, the English and the Commercial Departments successively. Since 1908 he has been secretary and business manager of the University.

[527] Professor Miller is a product of Howard and one of her most distinguished sons. He was graduated from Preparatory Department in 1882 and from College in 1886 after which he pursued advanced studies at Johns Hopkins University. He is one of the most conspicuous publicists of the race, being the author of several books and numerous pamphlets, beside making frequent contributions to periodicals, both in America and abroad. His most important books are Race Adjustment and Out of the House of Bondage. The Disgrace of Democracy, an open letter to President Wilson, published in 1917, has been pronounced one of the most important documents produced by the great war.

[528] Dr. Newman was graduated from Bowdoin College, the alma mater of General Howard, in 1867, with the A.B. degree, receiving the A.M. in 1870 and D.D. in 1877. He studied theology at Andover, finishing in 1871. He served as pastor in Taunton, Massachusetts, Ripon, Wisconsin and the First Congregational Church of Washington, District of Columbia. He was president of Eastern College, Fort Royal, Virginia, 1908-9, and Kee Mar College for Women, Hagerstown, Maryland, 1909-11. He is a member of a number of learned societies and a distinguished pulpit orator.

[529] President Taft considered the support of the University a national obligation. In his address at the commencement exercises, May 26, 1909, he said, in part:

"Everything that I can do as an executive in the way of helping along the University I expect to do. I expect to do it because I believe it is a debt of the people of the United States, it is an obligation of the Government of the United States, and it is money constitutionally applied to that which shall work out in the end the solution of one of the greatest problems that God has put upon the people of the United States."

DOCUMENTS

WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THOUGHT OF THE NEGRO

The first important discussion in the Convention of 1787 to reflect the attitude of the framers of the Federal Constitution toward the Negro, was whether or not slaves should be considered a part of the population in apportioning representation in Congress on that basis. A precedent had been set in the Articles of Confederation in the provision for counting five slaves as three whites to determine the rate of taxation on the population basis. The free States contended that only the free inhabitants should be counted, but the slave States urged the recognition of slaves as a part of the population to secure to the South the power which it wielded until the Civil War.[530]

Taking up this important question soon after the convention assembled,

The following resolution was then moved by Mr. Randolph, Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.

It was moved by Mr. Hamilton seconded by Mr. Spaight that the resolution be altered so as to read

Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants

It was moved and seconded that the resolution be postponed—and on the question to postpone it passed in the affirmative

The following resolution was moved by Mr. Randolph seconded by Mr Madison Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned—it was moved and seconded to add the words "and not according to the present system"—On the question to agree to the amendment it passed in the affirmative. (Ayes—7 noes—0.)[531]

It was then moved and seconded so to alter the resolution that it should read

Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought not to be according

It was then moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last resolution—And, on the question to postpone, it passed in the affirmative The following resolution was then moved by Mr Madison seconded by Mr. G Morris.

Resolved that the equality of suffrage established by the articles of confederation ought not to prevail in the national legislature and that an equitable ratio of representation ought to be substituted.

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last resolution.

(The following Resolution being the 2d. of those proposed by Mr. Randolph was taken up. viz—"that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.")

Mr. M(adison) observing that the words ("or to the number of) free inhabitants." might occasion debates which would divert the Committee from the general question whether the principle of representation should be changed, moved that they might be struck out.

Mr King observed that the quotas of contribution which would alone remain as the measure of representation, would not answer; because waving every other view of the matter, the revenue might hereafter be so collected by the general Govt. that the sums respectively drawn from the States would (not) appear; and would besides be continually varying.

Mr. Madison admitted the propriety of the observation, and that some better rule ought to be found.

Col. Hamilton moved to alter the resolution so as to read "that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants. Mr. Spaight 2ded. the motion.

It was then moved that the Resolution be postponed, which was agreed to.

Mr. Randolph and Mr. Madison then moved the following resolution—"that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned."

It was moved and 2ded to amend it by adding "and not according to the present system"—which was agreed to.

It was then moved and 2ded. to alter the resolution so as to read "that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought not to be according to the present system."

It was then moved & 2ded. to postpone the Resolution moved by Mr. Randolph & Mr. Madison, which being agreed to;

Mr. Madison, moved, in order to get over the difficulties, the following resolution—"that the equality of suffrage established by the articles of Confederation ought not to prevail in the national Legislature, and that an equitable ratio of representation ought to be submitted" This was 2ded. by Mr. Govr. Morris, (and being generally relished, would have been agreed to when,)

Mr. Reed moved that the whole clause relating to the point of Representation be postponed; reminding the Come. that the deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from assenting to any change of the rule of suffrage, and in case a change should be fixed on, it might become their duty to retire from the Convention.

Mr. Govr. Morris observed that the valuable assistance of those members could not be lost without real concern, and that so early a proof of discord in the convention as a secession of a State, would add much to the regret; that the change proposed was however so fundamental an article in a national Govt. that it could not be dispensed with.

Mr. M(adison) observed that whatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States, it must cease when a national Governt. should be put into the place. In the former case, the acts of Congs. depended so much for their efficacy on the cooperation of the States, that these had a weight both within & without Congress, nearly in proportion to their extent and importance. In the latter case, as the acts of the Genl. Govt. would take effect without the intervention of the State legislatures, a vote from a small State wd. have the same efficacy & importance as (a vote) from a large one, and there was the same reason for (different numbers) of representatives from different States, as from Counties of different extents within particular States. He suggested as an expedient for at once taking the sense of the members on this point and saving the Delaware deputies from embarrassment, that the question should be taken in Committee, and the clause on report to the House (be postponed without a question there). This however did not appear to satisfy Mr. Read.

By several it was observed that no just construction of the Act of Delaware, could require or justify a secession of her deputies, even if the resolution were to be carried thro' the House as well as the Committee. It was finally agreed however that the clause should be postponed: it being understood that in the event the proposed change of representation would certainly be agreed to, no objection or difficulty being started from any other quarter (than from Delaware).

The motion of Mr. Read to postpone being agreed to

The Committee then rose. The chairman reported progress, and the House having resolved to resume the subject in Committee tomorrow,[532]

(Adjourned to 10 OClock)

The next question was on the following resolve:

In substance that the mode of the present representation was unjust—the suffrage ought to be in proportion to number or property.

To this Delaware objected, in consequence of the restrictions in their credentials, and moved to have the consideration thereof postponed, to which the house agreed.[533]

McHenry records for the thirtieth of May that the Committee then proceeded to consider the second resolution in Mr. Randolph's paper.

That the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution or to the number of free inhabitants as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.

As this gave the large States the most absolute controul over the lesser ones it met with opposition which produced an adjournment without any determination.[534]

After frequent discussion and the failure to reach an agreement to safeguard the interests of the small States while giving due weight to the population of the large the effort to apportion representation in the national legislature assumed this form in the Committee of the Whole:

It was moved by Mr. King, seconded by Mr Rutledge to agree to the following resolution, namely:

Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation

And on the question to agree to the same

it passed in the affirmative (Ayes—7; noes—3; divided—1.)

It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge seconded by Mr Butler to add the following words to the last resolution

"namely, according to the quotas of contribution"

It was moved by Mr Wilson seconded by Mr C. Pinckney to postpone the consideration of the last motion in order to introduce the following words, after the words "equitable ratio of representation" namely.

"in proportion to the whole number of white and other 'free Citizens' and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, 'including those bound to servitude for a term of years', and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes 'in each State.'"

On the question to postpone

it passed in the affirmative. (Ayes—10; noes—1.)

On the question to agree to Mr Wilson's motion

It passed in the affirmative (Ayes—9; noes—2.)

It was then moved by Mr Wilson seconded by Mr Hamilton to adopt the following resolution, namely,

"resolved that the right of suffrage in the second branch "of the national Legislature ought to be according to the rule "established for the first"

On the question to agree to the same it passed in the affirmative (Ayes—6; noes—5.)[535]

In the Committee of the Whole on the eleventh of June:

It was then moved by Mr. Rutlidge 2ded. by Mr. Butler to add to the words "equitable ratio of representation" at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of Contribution. On motion of

Mr. Wilson seconded by Mr. C. Pinckney, this was postponed; in order to add, after, after the words "equitable ratio of representation" the words following "in proportion to the whole number of white & other free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State." this being the rule in the Act of Congress agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every 5—7, or 10 years.

Mr. Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why then shd, the blacks, who were property in the South be in the rule of representation more than the cattle & horses of the North.

On the question.

Mass: Con: N. Y. Pen: Maryd. Virga. N. C. S. C. and Geo: were in the affirmative: N. J. & Del: in the negative. (Ayes—9; noes—2.) Mr. Sherman moved that a question be taken whether each State shall have (one) vote in the 2d. branch. Every thing he said depended on this. The smaller States would never agree to the plan on any other principle (than an equality of suffrage in this branch. Mr. Ellsworth seconded the motion.) On the question for allowing each State (one) vote in the 2d. branch.

Massts, no. Cont, ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—5; noes—6.)

(Mr. Wilson & Mr. Hamilton moved that the right of suffrage in the 2d. branch ought to be according to the same rule as in the 1st. branch.)

On this question for making the ratio of representation the same in the 2d. as in the 1st. branch (it passed in the affirmative:) Massts. ay. Cont. no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—6; noes—5.)[536]

On the same day

Mr. Wilson was of opinion, and therefore moved, that the mode of representation of each of the states ought to be from the number of its free inhabitants, and of every other description three fifths to one free inhabitant. He supposed that the impost will not be the only revenue—the post office he supposes would be another substantial source of revenue. He observed further, that this mode had already received the approbation of eleven states in their acquiescence to the quota made by congress. He admitted that this resolve would require further restrictions, for where numbers determined the representation a census at different periods of 5, 7 or 10 years, ought to be taken.

Mr. Gerry. The idea of property ought not to be the rule of representation. Blacks are property, and are used to the southward as horses and cattle to the northward; and why should their representation be increased to the southward on account of the number of slaves, than horses or oxen to the north?

Mr. Madison was of opinion at present, to fix the standard of representation, and let the detail be the business of a sub-committee.

Mr. Rutledge's motion was postponed.[537]

Discussing whether the apportionment should be according to taxation or numbers, Wilson considered

Either Rule good—by Numbers best to ascertain the Right of Representn. this agreeably to the Sentiments of 11 States—Impost alone will not be sufficient to answer the national Exigencies—Revenues arising from Postage—The present Quota not a lasting Rule—People to be numbered at fixed Periods—A Rule arising from Property and Numbers—

Gerry. Rule of Taxation not the Rule of Representation—4 might then have more Voices than ten—Slaves not to be put upon the Footing of freemen—Freemen of Massts. not to be put upon a Footing with the Slaves of other States—Horses and Cattle ought to have the Right of Representn. Negroes—Whites—[538]

On the thirteenth of June Randolph submitted another resolution agreed to in the Committee of the Whole.

Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation—namely in proportion to the whole number of whites and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.[539]

The following propositions from New Jersey moved by Patterson closely connected the apportionment of requisitions with that of representation:

3. Resd. that whenever requisitions shall be necessary, instead of the rule for making requisitions mentioned in the articles of Confederation, the United States in Congs. be authorized to make such requisitions in proportion to the whole number of white & other free citizens & inhabitants of every age sex and condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years & three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes; that if such requisitions be not compiled with, in the time specified therein, to direct the collection thereof in the non complying States & for that purpose to devise and pass acts directing & authorizing the same; provided that none of the powers hereby vested in the U. States in Congs. shall be exercised without the consent of at least [540]

Again on the fifteenth of June it was suggested that

3. The rule of apportioning Requis: on the States shall be the Whites 3/5 of all others—if the Req. is in arrear in any State, Congress shall have authority to devise & pass acts remedial in such case.

On the fifth of July the committee considering the question of representation reported on the 40,000 basis which repeatedly came before the Convention. It provided:

That in the first branch of the legislature, each of the states now in the union, be allowed one member for every 40,000 inhabitants, of the description reported in the seventh resolution of the committee of the whole house—That each state, not containing that number, shall be allowed one member.[541]

Reporting on this question the fifth of July, the Committee of the Whole decided to submit:

That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention, on condition that both shall be generally adopted.

1st That in the first branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union be allowed one Member for every forty thousand inhabitants of the description reported in the seventh resolution of the Committee of the whole House. That each State not containing that number shall be allowed one Member—That all Bills for raising or appropriating money and for fixing the salaries of the Officers of the Government of the United States, shall originate in the first Branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the second Branch and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations to be originated by the first Branch. 2ndly That in the second Branch of the Legislature each State shall have an equal Veto.

Discussing this question on the sixth of July:

Mr. Pinkney saw no good reason for committing. The value of land had been found on full investigation to be an impracticable rule. The contributions of revenue including imports & exports, must be too changeable in their amount; too difficult to be adjusted; and too injurious to the non-commercial States. The number of inhabitants appeared to him the only just & practicable rule. He thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites: But wd.—agree to the ratio settled by Congs. He contended that Congs. had no right under the articles of Confederation to authorize the admission of new States; no such cases having been provided for.[542]

On the ninth of July, according to Madison, Mr. Gorham said:

Some provision of this sort was necessary in the outset. The number of blacks & whites with some regard to supposed wealth was the general guide. Fractions could not be observed. The Legislre. is to make alterations from time to time as justice & propriety may require. Two objections prevailed agst. the rate of 1 member for every 40,000 inhts. The 1st. was that the Representation would soon be too numerous: the 2d. that the Western States who may have a different interest, might if admitted on that principal by degrees, out-vote the Atlantic. Both these objections are removed. The number will be small in the first instance and maybe continued so, and the Atlantic States having ye Govt. in their own hands, may take care of their own interest by dealing out the right of Representation in safe proportions to the Western States. These were the views of the Committee.[543]

On the tenth of July the following interesting comment was made.

Mr. Dayton observed that the line between the Northn. & Southern interest had been improperly drawn: that Pa. was the dividing State, there being six on each side of her.

Genl. Pinkney urged the reduction, dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the Government.

Mr. Govr. Morris regretted the turn of the debate. The States he found had many Representatives on the floor. Few he fears were to be deemed the Representatives of America. He thought the Southern States have by the report more than their share of representation. Property ought to have its weight; but not all the weight. If the (Southn. States are to) supply money. The Northn. States are to spill their blood. Besides, the probable Revenue to be expected from the S. States has been greatly overrated. He was agst. reducing N. Hampshire.[544]

In connection with determining the basis of representation the following was offered on the eleventh of July:

"Resolved That in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population and wealth of the several States a census shall be taken of the free inhabitants of each State, and three fifths of the inhabitants of other description on the first year after this form of Government shall have been adopted—and afterwards on every term of ____ years; and the Legislature shall alter or augment the representation accordingly"

It was moved and seconded to strike out the words

"three fifths of"

which passed in the negative. (Ayes—3; noes—7.)

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the resolution proposed in order to take up the following namely.

Resolved That at the end of ____ years from the meeting of the Legislature of the United-States and at the expiration of every ____ years thereafter the Legislature of the United States be required to apportion the representation of the several States according to the principles of their wealth and population.

On the question to postpone, it passed in the negative (Ayes—5; noes—5;)

It was moved and seconded to agree to the first clause of the resolution namely.

"That in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population and wealth of the several States a "Census shall be taken of each State"

which passed in the affirmative (Ayes—6; noes—4.)

(To adjourn. Ayes—1; noes—9.)

It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause of the resolution, namely

"and three fifths of the inhabitants of other description"

which passed in the negative. (Ayes—4; noes—6.)

It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause of the resolution, namely

"On the first year after this form of government shall "have been adopted"

which passed in the affirmative (Ayes—7; noes—3.)

It was moved and seconded to fill up the blank with the word "fifteen" which passed unanimously in the affirmative (Ayes—10; noes—0.)

It was moved and seconded to add after the words fifteen years the words "at least"

which passed in the negative (Ayes—5; noes—5.)

It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause of the resolution namely

"and the Legislature shall alter or augment the representation accordingly"

which passed unanimously in the affirmative (Ayes—10; noes—0.) On the question to agree to the resolution as amended it passed unanimously in the negative. (Ayes—0; noes—10.) and then the House adjourned till tomorrow at 11 o'clock A.M.[545]

Taking up the question, Mr. Williamson urged again on the eleventh of July the counting of five Negroes as three white persons.

Mr. Williamson was for making it the duty of the Legislature to do what was right & not leaving it at liberty to do or not do it. He moved that Mr. Randolph's proposition be postponed, in order to consider the following "that in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population & wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants and 3/5ths of those of other descriptions on the 1st year (after this Government shall have been adopted) and every year thereafter; and that the Representation be regulated accordingly.[546]

Mr. Butler & Genl. Pinkney insisted that blacks be included in the rule of Representation, equally with the whites: (and for that purpose moved that the words "three fifths" be struck out.)[547]

Mr. Gerry though that 3/5 of them was to say the least the full proportion that could be admitted.

Mr. Ghorum. This ratio was fixed by Congs. as a rule of taxation. Then it was urged by the Delegates representing the States having slaves that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At present when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are assured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on ye. former occasion had convinced him that 3/5 was pretty near the just proportion and he should vote according to the same opinion now.

Mr. Butler insisted that the labour of a slave in S. Carola. was as productive & valuable as that of a freeman in Massts., that as wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the Nation they are equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a Government which was instituted principally for the protection of property, and was itself to be supported by property.

Mr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was favorable to Virga. because he thought it unjust. It was certain that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land, increased the exports & imports, and of course the revenue, would supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to be excluded from the estimate of Representation. He could not, however, regard them as equal to freemen and could not vote for them as such. He added as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have this peculiar species of property over & above the other species of property common to all the States.

Mr. Williamson reminded Mr. Ghorum that if the Southn. States contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation was in view, the Eastern States on the same occasion contended for their equality. He did (not) however either then or now, concur in either extreme, but approved of the ratio of 3/5.

On Mr. Butlers motion for considering blacks as equal to Whites in the apportionment for Representation

Massts. no. Cont. no. (N. Y. not on floor.) N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. No. (Va. no) N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—3; noes—7.)

Mr. Govr. Morris said he had several objections to the proposition of Mr. Williamson. 1. It fettered the Legislature too much. 2. It would exclude some States altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle them to a single Representative. 3. It will not consist with the Resolution passed on Saturday last authorizing the Legislature to adjust the Representation from time to time on the principles of population & wealth or with the principles of equity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth, then the sd Resolution would not be pursued: If as wealth, then why is no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps be removed by amendments. His great objection was that the number of inhabitants was not a proper standard of wealth. The amazing difference between the comparative numbers & wealth of different Countries, renderd all reasoning superfluous on the subject. Numbers might with greater propriety be deemed a measure of strength, than of wealth, yet the late defence made by G. Britain agst. her numerous enemies proved in the clearest manner, that it is entirely fallacious even in this respect.

Mr. King thought there was great force in the objections of Mr. Govr. Morris: he would however accede to the proposition for the sake of doing something.

Mr. Rutlidge contended for the admission of wealth in the estimate by which Representation should be regulated. The Western States will not be able to contribute in proportion to their numbers, they shd. not therefore be represented in that proportion. The Atlantic States will not concur in such a plan. He moved that "at the end of ____ years after the 1st meeting of the Legislature, and of every ____ years thereafter, the Legislature shall proportion the Representation according to the principles of wealth & population"

Mr. Sherman thought the number of people alone the best rule for measuring wealth as well as representation; and that if the Legislature were to be governed by wealth, they would be obliged to estimate it by numbers. He was at first for leaving the matter wholly to the discretion of the Legislature; but he had been convinced by the observations of (Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason) that the periods & the rule of revising the Representation ought to be fixt by the Constitution

Mr. Reid thought the Legislature ought not to be too much shackled. It would make the Constitution like Religious Creeds, embarrassing to those bound to conform to them & more likely to produce dissatisfaction and Scism, than harmony and union.

Mr. Mason objected to Mr. Rutlidge motion, as requiring of the Legislature something too indefinite & impracticable, and leaving them a pretext for doing nothing.

Mr. Wilson had himself no objection to leaving the Legislature entirely at liberty. But considered wealth as an impracticable rule.

Mr. Ghorum. If the Convention who are comparatively so little biased by local views are so much perplexed, How can it be expected that the Legislature hereafter under the full biass of those views, will be able to settle a standard. He was convinced by the argument of others & his own reflections, that the Convention ought to fix some standard or other.

Mr. Govr. Morris. The argts. of others & his own reflections had led him to a very different conclusion. If we can't agree on a rule that will be just at this time, how can we expect to find one that will be just in all times to come. Surely those who come after us will judge better of things present, than we can of things future. He could not persuade himself that numbers would be a just rule at any time. * * * * * * * Another objection with him agst admitting the blacks into the census, was that the people of Pena. would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect. Two objections had been raised agst. leaving the adjustment of the Representation from time to time, to the discretion of the Legislature.[548]

The question of counting three-fifths of the Negroes as whites, however, would not down. According to Madison:

Mr. King, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He thought the admission of them along with Whites at all, would excite great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never said as to any particular point that he would in no event acquiesce in & support it; but he wd. say that if in any case such a declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this. He remarked that in the (temporary) allotment of Representatives made by the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number of their white & three fifths of their black inhabitants entitled them to.

Mr. Sherman. S. Carola. had not more beyond her proportion than N. York & N. Hampshire, nor either of them more than was necessary in order to avoid fractions or reducing them below their proportion. Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify it. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all circumstances, he was satisfied with it.

Mr. Ghorum supported the propriety of establishing numbers as the rule. He said that in Massts. estimates had been taken in the different towns, and that persons had been curious enough to compare these estimates with the respective numbers of people; and it had been found even including Boston, that the most exact proportion prevailed between numbers and property. He was aware that there might be some weight in what had fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the proposition of Congs for changing the 8th art. of Confedn. was before the Legislature of Massts. the only difficulty then was to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to have been counted equally with whites instead of being counted in the ratio of three fifths only.

Mr. Wilson did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as Citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted as property, then why is not other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties however which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of compromise. He had some apprehensions also from the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people of Pena. as had been intimated by his colleagues (Mr. Govr. Morris). But he differed from him in thinking numbers of inhabts. so incorrect a measure of wealth. He had seen the Western settlemts. of Pa. and on a comparison of them with the City of Philada. could discover little other difference, than that property was more unequally divided among individuals here than there. Taking the same number in the aggregate in the two situations he believed there could be little difference in their wealth and ability to contribute to the public wants.

Mr. Govr. Morris was compelled to declare himself reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human nature, and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes, and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.

On question for agreeing to include 3/5 of the blacks Masts, no Cont. ay N. J. no. Pa. no Del. no. Mard. no Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay (Ayes—6; noes—4.)[549]

On the twelfth of July the following clause was proposed:

"Provided always that direct Taxation ought to be proportioned according to representation"

which passed unanimously in the affirmative.

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the first clause in the report from the first grand Committee

which passed in the affirmative.

It was moved and seconded to add the following amendment to the last clause adopted by the House namely "and that the rule of contribution by direct taxation for the support of the government of the United States shall be the number of white inhabitants, and three fifths of every other description in the several States, until some other rule that shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States can be devised and adopted by the Legislature [550]

On the motion of Mr. Randolph, the vote of Saturday last (July 7) authorizing the Legislre. to adjust from time to time, the representation upon the principles of Wealth and numbers of inhabitants was (reconsidered by common consent in order to strike our "Wealth" and adjust the resolution to that requiring periodical revisions according to the number of whites & three fifths of the blacks: the motion was in the words following—"But as the present situation of the States may probably alter in the number of their inhabitants, that the Legislature of the U. S. be authorized from time to time to apportion the number of representatives: and in case any of the States shall hereafter be divided or any two or more States united or new States created within the limits of the U. S. shall hereafter be divided or any two or more States united or new States created within the limits of the U. S. the Legislature of U. S. shall possess authority to regulate the number of Representatives in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principle of their number of inhabitants; according to the provisions hereafter mentioned.")

Mr. Govr. Morris opposed the alteration as leaving still an incoherence. If Negroes were to be viewed as inhabitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of numbers of inhbts. they ought to be added in their entire number, and not in the proportion of 3/5. If as property, the word wealth was right, and striking it out would produce the very inconsistency which it was meant to get rid of.—The train of business & the late turn which it had taken, had led him he said, into deep meditation on it, and He wd. candidly state the result. A distinction had been set up & urged between the Nn. & Southn. States. He had hitherto considered this doctrine as heretical. He still thought the distinction groundless. He sees however that it is persisted in; and that the Southn. Gentleman will not be satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority in the public Councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power from the maritime to the interior & landed interests will he forsees be such an oppression of commerce, that he shall be obliged to vote for ye. vicious principle of equality in the 2d. branch in order to provide for some defence for the N. States agst. it. But to come now more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious or real: if fictitious let it be dismissed & let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security if every particular interest is to be entitled to it. The Eastern States may claim it for their fishery, and for other objects, as the Southn. States claim it for their peculiar objects. In this struggle between the two ends of the Union, what part ought the Middle States in point of policy to take; to join their Eastern brethren according to his ideas. If the Southn. States get the power into their hands, and be joined as they will be the interior Country they will inevitably bring on a war with Spain for the Mississippi. This language is already held. The interior Country having no property nor interest exposed on the sea, will be little affected by such a war. He wished to know what security the Northn. & middle States will have agst. this danger. It has been said that N. C. S. C. and Georgia only will in a little time have a majority of the people of America. They must in that case include the great interior Country, and every thing was to be apprehended from their getting the power into their hands.[551]

The Committee of Detail finally brought forward for the apportionment of direct taxes and representation in the House a plan for taking the Negroes into account.

(Direct Taxation shall always be in Proportion to Representation in the House of Representatives.)

The proportions of direct Taxation shall be regulated by the whole Number of white and other free Citizens and Inhabitants, of every Age, Sex and Condition, including those bound to Servitude for a Term of Years, and three fifths of all other Persons not comprehended in the foregoing Description; which Number shall, within the Term of every ten Years afterwards, be taken in such manner as the said Legislature shall direct.[552]

This, as is shown below, is substantially what Rutledge as Chairman of the committee to report a constitution reported.

Sect. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, (except Indians not paying taxes) which number shall, within six years after the first meeting of the Legislature, and within the term of every ten years afterwards, be taken in such manner as the said Legislature shall direct.[553]

The same appears also in the report of the Committee on Style.

Sect. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole number of free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, (except Indians not paying taxes) which number shall, within three years after the first meeting of the Legislature, and within the term of every ten years afterwards, be taken in such manner as the said Legislature shall direct.

(b) Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative: and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New-Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantation one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New-Jersey, four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North-Carolina five, South-Carolina five and Georgia three.[554]

What these framers said in explaining their intentions thereafter when discussing the constitution in ratifying conventions, legislatures and Congress, is further illuminating. Before the Maryland convention called to ratify the constitution Luther Martin said:

S: 2. Slaves ought never to be considered in Representation, because they are property. They afford a rule as such in Taxation; but are Citizens intrusted in the General Government, no more than Cattle, Horses, Mules or Asses: and a Gentleman in Debate very pertinently observed that he would as soon enter into Compacts, with the Asses Mules, or Horses of the Ancient Dominion as with their Slaves—When there is power to raise a revenue by direct Taxation, each State ought to pay an equal Ratio; Whereas by taxing Commerce some States pay greatly more than others,[555]

Before the South Carolina House of Representatives C. C. Pinckney said:

We are at a loss, for some time, for a rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the states. At last we thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule for ascertaining their wealth. In conformity to this rule, joined to a spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be apportioned among the several states, by adding to the whole number of free persons three fifths of the slaves. We thus obtained a representation for our property; and I confess I did not expect that we had conceded too much to the Eastern States, when they allowed us a representation for a species of property which they have not among them.[556]

In the New York Convention considering the ratification of the constitution, Hamilton said:

The first thing objected to is that clause which allows a representation for three fifths of the negroes.... The regulation complained of was one result of the spirit of accommodation which governed the Convention; and without this indulgence no union could possibly have been formed.[557]

On July 24, 1788, in the North Carolina convention, Davie said:

... The gentleman "does not wish to be represented with negroes." This, sir, is an unhappy species of population; but we cannot at present alter their situation. The Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses were equally entitled to representation; that the one was property as well as the other. It became our duty, on the other hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the legislation of the Union; and, as the Northern States were more populous in whites, this only could be done by insisting that a certain proportion of our slaves should make a part of the computed population. It was attempted to form a rule of representation from a compound ratio of wealth and population; but, on consideration, it was found impracticable to determine the comparative value of lands and other property, in so extensive a territory, with any degree of accuracy; and population alone was adopted as the only practicable rule or criterion of representation. It was urged by the deputies of the Eastern States, that a representation would be unequal and burdensome—that, in a time of war, slaves rendered a country more vulnerable, while its defence devolved upon its free inhabitants. On the other hand, we insisted that, in time of peace, they contributed by their labor, to the general wealth, as well as other members of the community—that, as rational beings, they had a right of representation, and, in some instances, might be highly useful in war. On these principles the Eastern States gave the matter up, and consented to the regulation as it has been read. I hope these reasons will appear satisfactory. It is the same rule or principle which was proposed some years ago by Congress, and assented to by twelve of the States....[558]

In the House of Representatives in 1820 C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina said:

Among the reasons which have induced me to rise, one is to express my surprise. Surprise, did I say? I ought rather to have said, my extreme astonishment, at the assertion I heard made on both floors of Congress, that, in forming the Constitution of the United States, and particularly that part of it which respects the representation on this floor, the Northern and Eastern States, or, as they are now called, the non-slaveholding States, have made a great concession to the Southern in granting them a representation of three-fifths of their slaves; that they saw the concession was a very great and important one at the time, but that they had no idea it would so soon have proved itself of such consequence; that it would so soon have proved itself to be by far the most important concession that had been made. They say, that it was wrung from them by their affection to the Union, and their wish to preserve it from dissolution or disunion; that they had, for a long time, lamented they had made it; and that, if it was to do over, no earthly consideration should again tempt them to agree to so unequal and so ruinous a compromise....

It was, sir, for the purpose of correcting this great and unpardonable error; unpardonable, because it is a wilful one, and the error of it is well known to the ablest of those who make it; of denying the assertion, and proving that the contrary is the fact, and that the concession, on that occasion, was from the Southern and the Northern States, that, among others, I have risen.

It is of the greatest consequence that the proof I am about to give should be laid before this nation; for, as the inequality of representation is the great ground on which the Northern and Eastern States have always, and now more particularly and forcibly than ever, raised all their complaints on this subject, if I can show and prove that they have not even a shadow of right to make pretences or complaints; that they are as fully represented as they ought to be; while, we, the Southern members, are unjustly deprived of any representation for a large and important part of our population, more valuable to the Union, as can be shown, than any equal number of inhabitants in the Northern and Eastern States, can, from their situation, climate, and productions, possibly be. If I can prove this, I think I shall be able to show most clearly the true motives which have given rise to this measure; to strip the thin, the cobweb veil from it, as well as the pretended ones of religion, humanity, and love of liberty; and to show, to use the soft terms the decorum of debate oblige me to use, the extreme want of modesty in those who are already as fully represented here as they can be, to go the great lengths they do in endeavoring, by every effort in their power, public and private, to take from the Southern and Western States, which are already so greatly and unjustly deprived of an important part of the representation, a still greater share; to endeavor to establish the first precedent, which extreme rashness and temerity have ever presumed, that Congress has a right to touch the question and legislate on slavery; thereby shaking the property in them, in the Southern and Western States, to its very foundation, and making an attack which, if successful, must convince them that the Northern and Eastern States are their greatest enemies; that they are preparing measures for them which even Great Britain in the heat of the Revolutionary War, and when all her passions were roused by hatred and revenge to the highest pitch never ventured to inflict upon them. Instead of a course like this, they ought, in my judgment, sir, to be highly pleased with their present situation; that they are fully represented, while we have lost so great a share of our representation; they ought sir, to be highly pleased at the dexterity and management of their members in the Convention, who obtained for them this great advantage; and, above all, with the moderation and forbearance with which the Southern and Western States have always borne their many bitter provocations on this subject, and now bear the open, avowed, and, by many of the ablest men among them, undisguised attack on our most valuable rights and properties....

Before I proceed to the other parts of this question, I have thus endeavored to give a new view of the subject of representation in this House; to show how much more the Eastern and Northern States are represented than the Southern and Western....

The supporters of the amendment contend that Congress have the right to insist on the prevention of involuntary servitude in Missouri; and found the right on the ninth section of the first article, which says "the migration or importation of such persons as the States now existing may think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars."

In considering this article, I will detail, as far as at this distant period is possible, what was the intention of the Convention that formed the Constitution in this article. The intention was, to give Congress a power, after the year 1808, to prevent the importation of slaves either by land or water from other countries. The word import, includes both, and applies wholly to slaves. Without this limitation Congress might have stopped it sooner under their general power to regulate commerce; and it was an agreed point, a solemnly understood compact, that, on the Southern States consenting to shut their ports against the importation of Africans, no power was to be delegated to Congress, nor were they ever to be authorized to touch the question of slavery; that the property of the Southern States in slaves was to be as sacredly preserved, and protected to them, as that of land, or any other kind of property in the Eastern States were to be to their citizens.

The term, or word, migration, applies wholly to free whites; in its Constitutional sense, as intended by the Convention, it means "voluntary change of servitude," from one country to another. The reasons of its being adopted and used in the Constitution, as far as I can recollect, were these; that the Constitution being a frame of government, consisting wholly of delegated powers, all power, not expressly delegated, being reserved to the people or the States, it was supposed, that, without some express grant to them of power on the subject, Congress would not be authorized ever to touch the question of migration hither, or emigration to this country, however pressing or urgent the necessity for such a measure might be; that they could derive no such power from the usages of nations, or even the laws of war; that the latter would only enable them to make prisoners of alien enemies, which would not be sufficient, as spies or other dangerous emigrants, who were not alien enemies, might enter the country for treasonable purposes, and do great injury; that, as all governments possessed this power, it was necessary to give it to our own, which could alone exercise it, and where, on other and much greater points, we had placed unlimited confidence; it was, therefore, agreed that, in the same article, the word migration should be placed; and that, from the year 1808, Congress should possess the complete power to stop either or both, as they might suppose the public interest required; the article, therefore, is a negative pregnant, restraining for twenty years, and giving the power after.

The reasons for restraining the power to prevent migration hither for twenty years, were, to the best of my recollections, these; That, as at this time, we had immense and almost immeasurable territory, peopled by not more than two millions and a half of inhabitants, it was of very great consequence to encourage the emigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans. The wise conduct of William Penn, and the unexampled growth of Pennsylvania, were cited. It was said, that the portals of the only temple of true freedom now existing on earth should be thrown open to all mankind; that all foreigners of industrious habits should be welcome, and none more so than men of science, and such as may bring to us arts we are unacquainted with, or the means of perfecting those in which we are not yet sufficiently skilled—capitalists whose wealth may add to our commerce or domestic improvements; let the door be ever and most affectionately open to illustrious exiles and sufferers in the cause of liberty; in short, open it liberally to science, to merit, and talents, wherever found, and receive and make them your own. That the safest mode would be to pursue the course for twenty years, and not, before that period, put it at all into the power of Congress to shut it; that, by that time, the Union would be so settled, and our population would be so much increased, we could proceed on our own stock, without the farther accession of foreigners; that as Congress were to be prohibited from stopping the importation of slaves to settle the Southern States, as no obstacles was to be thrown in the way of their increase and settlement for that period, let it be so with the Northern and Eastern, to which, particularly New York and Philadelphia it was expected most of the emigrants would go from Europe: and it so happened, for, previous to the year 1808, more than double as many Europeans emigrated to these States, as of Africans were imported into the Southern States.

Connecting the question of importing slaves with that of counting them to determine the representation in the national legislature, the framers engaged in a heated debate as to whether or not the Southern States would always have a majority in that body by encouraging the slave trade. Carolina and Georgia, however, stood firm for the right to import slaves.

On July 23 General Pinckney reminded the Convention that if the Committee should fail to insert some security to the Southern States agst. an emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he shd. be bound by duty to his State to vote agst. their Report—The appt. of a Come. as moved by Mr. Gerry, Agd. to nem. con.[559]

The Committee of Detail, therefore, reported:

2 no prohibitions or (such) (ye) Importations of such inhabitants (or people as the sevl. States think proper to admit)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid by the Legislature, on Articles exported from any State; nor on the emigration or importation of such Persons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall such emigration or importation be prohibited.

No Capitation Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census herein before directed to be taken.

The draft of the constitution reported on August 6 carried:[32]

Sect. 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles exported from any State; nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited.

On the eighth of August, King remarked:[560]

Mr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of Representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, & he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a readiness which had not been manifested, to strengthen the Genl. Govt. and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under consideration had by the tenor of it, put an end to all these hopes. In two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited—exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the Genl. System? 1. defence agst. foreign invasion. 2 agst. internal sedition. Shall all the States then be bound to defend each; & shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the U. S. be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the exports produced by their labor, supply a revenue the better to enable the Genl. Govt. to defend their masters?—There was so much inequality & unreasonableness in all this, that the people of the N(orthern) States could never be reconciled (to it). No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some accommodation wd. have taken place on this subject; that at least a time wd. have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let them be imported without limitation & then be represented in the Natl. Legislature. Indeed he could so little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not sure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.

Mr. Sherman regarded the slave-trade as iniquitous; but the point of representation having been settled after much difficuty & deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition; especially as the present articles as amended did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point in another place of the Report.

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to insert "free" before the word "inhabitants." Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution—It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd & the other States having slaves. (Travel thro' ye whold Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye E Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible; Passing thro' the Jerseys and entering Pa—every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed Southwdly, & every step you take thro' ye great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with ye increasing proportion of these wretched beings.)

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens & let them vote? Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this City (Philada.) are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & dam(n)s them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. He would add that Domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of Aristocracy. And What is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity. They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the S. States; for their defence agst those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels & seamen, in case of foreign Attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports; both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of defence; nay they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their votes in the Natl Govt increased in proportion, and are at the same time to have their exports & their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the Genl Govt. can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a Country. They can only do it through the medium of exports imports & excises. For what then are all these sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the Negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

Mr. Dayton 2ded. the motion. He did it he said that his sentiments on the subject might appear whatever might be the fate of the amendment.

Mr. Sherman, did not regard the admission of the Negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southn. States who were in fact to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the Negroes are only included in the Estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the matter.

Mr. Pinkney, considered the fisheries & the Western frontier as more burdensome to the U. S. than the slaves—He thought this could be demonstrated if the occasion were a proper one.

Mr Wilson, thought the motion premature—An agreement to the clause would be no bar to the object of it.

Question On Motion to insert "free" before "inhabitants."

N. H.—no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. S. C. no. N. C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—1; noes—10.)[561]

Luther Martin (some days thereafter), proposed to vary the sect: 4. art VII so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves,

1. As five slaves are to be counted as 3 free men in the apportionment of Representatives; such a clause wd. leave an encouragement to this traffic.

2. slaves weakened one part of the Union which the other parts were bound to protect: the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable—

3. it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.

Mr Rutlidge did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from the (obligation to protect the Southern against them.).—Religions & humanity had nothing to do with this question—Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations—The true question at present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.

Mr. Ellsworth was for leaving the clause as it stands, let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves—What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interest. The old confederation had not meddled with this point, and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one:

Mr Pinkney. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly & watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, S. Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia & Maryland have already done.[562]

Adjourned

Art. VII sect 4. resumed. Mr. Sherman was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade: yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, & as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it.[34] He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatch(ing its business.)

Col. Mason. This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the Enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves, as it did by the Tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to the Commissioners sent to Virginia to arm the servants & slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland & Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N. Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain if S. Carolina & Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands; and will fill that Country with slaves if they can be got thro' S. Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the Right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view, that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Mr. Ellsworth. As he had never owned a slave could not judge of the effects of slavery on character. He said however that if it was to be considered in a moral light we ought to go farther and free those already in the Country.—As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no farther than is urged, we shall be unjust towards S. Carolina & Georgia—Let us not intermeddle. As population increases; poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck in our Country. Provision is already taken place in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrection from foreign influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

Mr. Pinkney—If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome & other ancient States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland & other modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the S. States were let alone they will probably of themselves stop importations. He wd. himself as a Citizen of S. Carolina vote for it. An attempt to take away the right as proposed will produce serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to see adopted.

General Pinkney declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself & all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution & use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina & Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, & she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require S. C. & Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to S. Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ the carrying trade; the more consumption also, and the more of this, the more of revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of S. Carola from the Union.

Mr. Baldwin had conceived national object alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a Genl Government to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for every thing—that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage—& that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of which he said was a respectable class of people, who carryed their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.

Mr. Wilson observed that if S. C. & Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the importation might be prohibited. As the Section now stands all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article.

Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to Slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.

Mr. Dickinson considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor & safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the States by the Constitution. The true question was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation, and this question ought to be left to the National Govt. not to the States particularly interested. If Engd. & France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time excluded from both those kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southn. States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the Genl. Government.

Mr Williamson stated the law of N. Carolina on the subject, to wit that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of £5. on each slave imported from Africa. £10. on each from elsewhere, & £50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the S. States could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected, and that it was wrong to force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.

Mr. King thought the subject should be considered in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other, that great & equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty whilst every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northn. & middle States.

Mr. Langdon was strenuous for giving the power to the Genl Govt. He cd. not with a good conscience leave it with the States who could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by the opinions here given that they will themselves cease to import slaves.

Genl. Pinkney thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think S. Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved to commit the clause that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports which he thought right & wh. wd. remove one difficulty that had been started.

Mr. Rutlidge. If the Convention thinks that N. C.; S. C. & Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous agst. striking out the Section, and seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment.

Mr. Govr. Morris wished the whole subject to be committed including the clauses relating to taxes on exports & to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern & Southern States.

Mr. Butler declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing exports.

Mr. Sherman said it was better to let the S. States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the Genl. Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.

Mr. Read was for the commitment provided the clause concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.

Mr. Sherman, observed that that clause had been agreed to & therefore could not committed.

Mr. Randolph was for committing in order that some middle ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it stands. He wd. sooner risk the constitution—He dwelt on the dilemma to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the State having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.

On the question for committing the remaining part of Sect. 4 & 5. of art: 7. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. ay N. J. ay Pa. no. Del. no Maryd. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay S. C. ay. Geo. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—7; noes—3; absent—1.)

Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Langdon moved to commit sect. 6. as to navigation act (by two thirds of each House.)

Mr. Gorham did not see the propriety of it. Is it meant to require a greater proportion of votes? He desired it to be remembered that the Eastern States had no motive to Union but a commercial one. They were able to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger, and did not need the aid of the Southn. States.

Mr. Wilson wished for a commitment in order to reduce the proportion of votes required.

Mr. Ellsworth was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of opinions has a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this middle & moderate ground he was afraid we should lose two States, with such others as may be disposed to stand aloof, should fly into a variety of shapes & directions, and most probably into several confederations and not without bloodshed.

On Question for committing 6 sect. as to navigation Act to a member from each State—N. H. ay—Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—9; noes—2;)[563]

McHenry has the following note on slavery for the twenty-second of August:

Committed the remainder of the 4 sect. with the 5 and 6.

The 4 sect promitting the importation of Slaves gave rise to much desultory debate.

Every 5 slaves counted in representation as one elector without being equal in point of strength to one white inhabitant.

This gave the slave States an advantage in representation over the others.

The slaves were moreover exempt from duty on importation.

They served to render the representation from such States aristocratical.

It was replied—That the population or increase of slaves in Virginia exceeded their calls for their services—That a prohibition of Slaves into S. Carolina Georgia etc—would be a monopoly in their favor. These States could not do without Slaves—Virginia etc would make their own terms for such as they might sell.

Such was the situation of the country that it could not exist without slaves—That they could confederate on no other condition.

They had enjoyed the right of importing slaves when colonies.

They enjoyed it as States under the confederation—And if they could not enjoy it under the proposed government, they could not associate or make a part of it.

Several additions were reported by the Committee.[564]

Upon taking up the report of the Committee of Eleven on the twenty-fifth of August

Genl Pinkney moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" (as the year limiting the importation of slaves,) and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

Mr. Ghorum 2ded the motion

Mr. Madison. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion; (which passed in the affirmative.) N—H ay. Mas. ay—Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no Del—no. Md. ay. Va. no. N—C. ay. S—C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—7; noes—4.)

Mr. Govr. Morris was for making the clause read at once, "importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S—Carolina & Georgia." (shall not be prohibited &c.) This he said would be most fair and would avoid the abiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known also that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language however should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

Col. Mason was not against using the term "slaves" but agst naming N—C—S—C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

Mr Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congs & were not pleasing to some people. Mr. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Williamson said that both in opinion & practice he was, against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in S—C & Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union—

Mr. Govr. Morris withdrew his motion.

Mr. Dickenson wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves, and for that purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read "The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the U—S—until the year 1808".—which was agreed to nem: cont:

The first part of the report was then agreed to, amended as follows. "The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808." N. H. Mas. Con. Md. N. C. S. C. Geo: ... ay N. J. Pa. Del Virga ... no. (Ayes—7; noes—4).

Mr. Baldwin in order to restrain & more explicitly define "the average duty" moved to strike out of the 2d. part the words "average of the duties laid on imports" and insert "common impost on articles not enumerated" which was agreed to nem: cont:

Mr. Sherman was agst. this 2d part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. King & Mr. Langdon considered this as the price of the 1st part.

Genl. Pinkney admitted that it was so.

Col. Mason. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.

Mr. Ghorum thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

Mr. Govr, Morris remarked that as the clause now stands it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. Sherman in answer to Mr. Ghorum observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandise, consumed &c.

Col. Mason (in answr. to Govr. Morris) the provision as it stands was necessary for the case of Convicts in order to prevent the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed nem: contrad: to make the clause read "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person", and then the 2d. part as amended was agreed to.

Sect 5—art—VII was agreed to nem: con: as reported.

Sect 6. art. VII. in the Report was, postponed.

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.[565]

James McHenry said before the Maryland House of Delegates in November 29, 1787:

Conventions were anxious to procure a perpetual decree against the importation of Slaves; but the Southern States could not be brought to consent to it—All that could possible be obtained was a temporary regulation which the Congress may vary hereafter.[566]

In 1787 James Wilson said before the Convention called in Pennsylvania to ratify the constitution:

With respect to the clause restricting Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808, the honorable gentleman says that this clause is not only dark, but intended to grant to Congress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves. No such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it gives me high pleasure that so much was done. Under the present confederation, the States may admit the importation of the slaves as long as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the same kind, gradual change which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government, where by they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is also obtained for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, Sir, operates as a partial prohibition. It was all that could be obtained. I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is reason to hope that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited altogether. And in the meantime, the new States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slaves will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says that it is unfortunate in another point of view: it means to prohibit the introduction of white people from Europe, as this may deter them from coming amongst us. A little impartiality and attention will discover the care that the convention took in selecting their language. The words are, the migration or IMPORTATION of such persons, etc., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such IMPORTATION. It is observable here that the term migration is dropped when a tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only on those imported.[567]

Referring to George Mason's objections to the Constitution, Oliver Ellsworth said:

The general Legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further importation of slaves for twenty odd years.... His objections are ... that such importations render the United States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defence. To this I readily agree, and all good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be imported.[568]

In his "Genuine Information" delivered before the Maryland Legislature November 29, 1787, Luther Martin said:

(56) By the ninth section of this article, the importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

(57) The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word "national," and not admit the word "stamps," influenced them here to guard against the word "slaves." They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those things which the expressions signified. And hence it is, that the clause is so worded, as really to authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so, as a servant; although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant to extend to the importation of slaves.

(58) This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States,—Georgia, South Carolina, and I think North Carolina, voting for it.

(59) We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that their States would never agree to a system, which put in it the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their assent from such a system.

(60) A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit; "No navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two thirds of the members present in each House;" a proposition which the staple and commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the eastern States; but which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave-trade, provided the southern States would, in their turn, gratify them, by laying no restrictions on navigation acts; and after a very little time the committee, by a great majority agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.

(61) This report was adopted by a majority of the convention but not without considerable opposition. It was said, that we had just assumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to enslave us; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to which God and nature had entitled us, not in particular, but in common with all the rest of mankind; that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that, now, when we scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and protection, in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty and for its preservation,—in that government, to have a provision not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave-trade, but even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States power and influence in the Union, in proportion as cruelly and wantonly sport with the rights of their fellow creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery, of an insult to that God whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that national crimes can only be, and frequently are punished in this world, by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him, who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.

(62) It was urged, that, by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave-trade; it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we should except from the exercise of that power, the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind; that, on the contrary, we ought rather to prohibit expressly in our constitution, the further importation of slaves; and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States: That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.

(63) It was further urged that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; that, from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the importation of slaves; since in proportion as the number of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is weakened, and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either; and, therefore will by so much the more want aid from, and be a burden to the Union. It was further said, that as, in this system, we were giving the general government a power under the idea of national character, or national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing instalment laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we should prohibit the government from interfering with the slave-trade than which, nothing could so materially affect both our national honor and interest. These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause as it now makes a part of the system.

(64). You will perceive, Sir, not only that the general government is prohibited from interfering in the slave-trade before the year eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the constitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great reason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited afterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so great abhorrence as we have done. When our own liberties were at stake, we warmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to be past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more insensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative acts, which may be repealed. When those States find, that they must, in their national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and share in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by the sanction which is given to it in the general government.[569]

In Elliot's Debates we find the following accredited to General Pinckney.

... The general then said he would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions the gentleman has quoted—that, while there remained one acre of swampland uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am so thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert waste.

You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness of any state who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of property, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves and the neighboring states; and that, as we were allowed a representation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence in government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to defend ourselves. "Show some period," said the members from the Eastern States, "when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we please, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for your convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices of our people on this subject." The Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were for an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the objections that were made in the best manner we could, and assigned reasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no occasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the house; a committee of the states was appointed in order to accommodate this matter, and, after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on the footing recited in the Constitution.

By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that the importation shall be then stopped; it may be continued. We have a security that the general government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is granted; and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several states. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad.[570]

Mr. Madison said in the Virginia ratifying Convention, June 17, 1787:

Mr. Chairman—I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils.—The southern states would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued forever: But by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is therefore an amelioration of our circumstances. A tax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise congress might lay such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those states where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the states are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this constitution, "no person held to service, or labor, in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."—This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states. The taxation of this state being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after that period they can. The gentlemen from South-Carolina and Georgia argued in this manner:—"We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much of the property now possessed has been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets." I need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse. If those states should disunite from the other states, for not indulging them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers....

(The 2d, 3d, and 4th clauses read.)

... Mr. Madison replied, that even the southern states, who were most affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no danger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the general government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty years, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten dollars; and that after the expiration of that period they may prohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the constitution was intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the community.—No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and exercises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive of the principles of equality: For that it was not possible to select any article which would be easy for one state, but what would be heavy for another.—...[571]

In 1789 Madison said:

I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of America with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was granted, I presume, upon two considerations: The first was, that until the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and humanity of such a trade. The other was, that they might be taxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value, and ought to be paid for.[572]

According to Elliot, Spaight said on July 26, 1787:

Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on....

Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it....[573]

In the House of Representatives on February 12, 1790:

Mr. Baldwin was sorry the subject had ever been brought before Congress, because it was of a delicate nature as it respected some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of the Constitution could not avoid the recollection of the pain and difficulty which the subject caused in that body. The members from the Southern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well nigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the extreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient Government, they were induced mutually to concede, and the Constitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look over the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree of caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but the moment we go to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere with the importation of slaves beyond what is given in the ninth section of the 1st article of the Constitution; everything else is interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the constitution, we shall find the expressions relative to this subject cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other part, "The migration or importation of such persons shall not be prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the object sufficiently, it is declared, in the same section, "That no capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special tax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the possessors of them as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on to the fifth article, we shall find the first and fifth clauses of the ninth section of the first article restrained from being altered before the year 1808.[574]

According to George Mason's Account:

The constn as agreed to till a fortnight before the convention rose was such a one as he wd have set his hand & heart to.... with respect to the importn of slaves it was left to Congress, this disturbed the 2 Souther-most states who knew that Congress would immediately suppress the importn of slaves, those 2 states therefore struck up a bargain with the 3. N. Engld, states, if they would join to admit slaves for some years, the 2 Southernmost states wd join in changing the clause which required 2/3 of the legislature in any vote. It was done, these articles were changed accordingly, & from that moment the two S. states and the 3 Northern ones joined Pen. Jers. & Del. & made the majority 8. to 3. against us instead of 8. to 3. for us as it had been thro' the whole Convention. under this coalition the great principles of the Constn were changed in the last days of the Convention.[575]

The following debate on this subject took place in the House of Representatives, June 16-20, 1798:

Mr. B(aldwin). thought the 9th section, forbidding Congress to prohibit the migration, &c., was directly opposed to the principles of this bill. He recollected very well that when the 9th section of the Constitution was under consideration in the Convention, the delegates from some of the Southern States insisted that the prohibition of the introduction of slaves should be left to the State Governments; it was found expedient to make this provision in the Constitution; there was an objection to the use of the word slaves, as Congress by none of their acts had ever acknowledged the existence of such a condition. It was at length settled on the words as they now stand, "that the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit, should not be prohibited till the year 1808." It was observed by some gentlemen present that this expression would extend to other persons besides slaves, which was not denied, but this did not produce any alteration of it....

Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) commenced his observations with declaring that he should not have risen on this occasion, if no allusion had been made to the proceedings in the Federal Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, or if the representation which was given of what passed in that body, had been a perfectly correct and candid one. He expressed his surprise at what had fallen from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Baldwin) relatively to that part of the Constitution, which had been selected as the text of opposition to the bill under consideration, viz: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing 'shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress, 'prior to the year 1808." He could only ascribe either to absolute forgetfulness, or to willful misrepresentation, the assertion of the member from Georgia, that it was understood and intended by the General Convention that the article in question should extend to the importation or introduction of citizens from foreign countries. As that gentleman and himself were the only two members of the House of Representatives who had the honor of a seat in that body, he deemed it his indispensable duty to correct the misstatement that had thus been made. He did not therefore, hesitate to say, in direct contradiction to this novel construction of the article (made as it would seem to suit the particular purposes of the opponents of the Alien bill) that the proposition itself was originally drawn up and moved in the Convention, by the deputies from South Carolina, for the express purpose of preventing Congress from interfering with the introduction of slaves into the United States, within the time specified. He recollected also, that in the discussion of its merits no question arose, or was agitated respecting the admission of foreigners but, on the contrary, that it was confined simply to slaves, and was first voted upon and carried with that word expressed in it, which was afterwards upon reconsideration changed for 'such persons,' as it now stands, upon the suggestion of one of the Deputies from Connecticut. The sole reason assigned for changing it was, that it would be better not to stain the Constitutional code with such a term, since it could be avoided by the introduction of other equally intelligible words, as had been done in the former part of the same instrument, where the same sense was conveyed by the circuitous expression of 'three fifths of all other persons.' Mr. Dayton said that at that time he was far from believing, and that indeed until the present debate arose, he had never heard, that any one member supposed that the simple change of the term would enlarge the construction of this prohibitory provision, as it was now contended for. If it could have been conceived to be really liable to such interpretation, he was convinced that it would not have been adopted, for it would then carry with it a strong injunction upon Congress to prohibit the introduction of foreigners into newly erected States immediately, and into the then existing States after the year 1808, as it undoubtedly does, that of slaves after that period....

Mr. Baldwin ... observed that he was yesterday obliged to leave the House a little before adjournment, and he had understood that, in his absence, the remarks which he had made on that point a few days ago, in Committee of the Whole, had been controverted, and that it had been done with some degree of harshness and personal disrespect. What he had before asserted was, that the clause respecting migration and importation was not considered at the time when it passed in the Convention as confined entirely to the subject of slaves. He spoke with the more confidence on this point, as there was scarcely one to which his attention had been so particularly called at the time. In making the Federal Constitution, when it was determined that it should be a Government possessing Legislative powers, the delegates from the two Southern States, of which he was one, were so fully persuaded that those powers would be used to the destruction of their property in slaves, that for some time they thought it would not be possible for them to be members of it: to that interesting state of the subject he had before alluded. In the progress of the business, other obstacles occurring, which he need not repeat, it was concluded to give to the delegates of those States the offer of preparing a clause to their own minds, to secure that species of property. He well remembered that when the clause was first prepared, it differed in two respects from the form in which it now stands. It used the word "slaves" instead of "migration", or "importation," or persons, and instead of "ten dollars," it was expressed "five percent ad valorem on their importation," which it was supposed would be about the average rate of duties under this Government. Several persons had objections to the use of the word "slaves, as Congress had hitherto avoided the use of it in their acts, and not acknowledged the existence of such a condition. It was expressly observed at the time, that making use of the form of expression as it now stands, instead of the word slaves, would make the meaning more general, and include what we now consider as included; this did not appear to be denied, but still it was preferred in its present form. He had more confidence than common in his recollection on this point, for the reasons which he had before stated. He gave it as the result of his very clear recollection. Any other member of that body was doubtless at liberty to say he did not recollect it. Still that would not diminish the confidence he felt on this occasion....[576]

In a letter to Robert Walsh November 27, 1817, Madison said:

Your letter of the 11th was duly recd, and I should have given it a less tardy answer, but for a succession of particular demands on my attention, and a wish to assist my recollections, by consulting both manuscript & printed sources of information on the subjects of your enquiry. Of these, however, I have not been able to avail myself, but very partially.

As to the intention of the framers of the Constitution in the clause relating to "the migration and importation of persons &c" the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it. The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the States, and the importation of slaves into them had been prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation, and were extremely adverse to any restriction on their power to do so. In the Convention the former States were anxious, in framing a new constitution, to insert a provision for an immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly declared that their constituents would never accede to a constitution containing such an article. Out of this conflict grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not then existing. Such was the tone of opposition in the States of S. Carolina & Georgia, & such the desire to gain their acquiescence in a prohibitory power, that on a question between the epochs of 1800 & 1808, the States of N. Hampshire, Massatts, & Connecticut, (all the eastern States in the convention); joined in the vote for the latter, influenced by the collateral motive of reconciling those particular States to the power over commerce & navigation; against which they felt, as did some other States, a very strong repugnance. The earnestness of S. Carolina & Georgia was further manifested by their insisting on the security in the V. article against any amendment to the Constitution affecting the right reserved to them, & their uniting with the small states who insisted on a like security for their equality in the Senate.

But some of the States were not only anxious for a constitutional provision against the introduction of Slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "Slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase "migration or importation of persons"; the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, whilst others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

But whatever may have been intended by the term "migration" or the term "persons", it is most certain, that they referred, exclusively, to a migration or importation from other countries into the U. States; and not to a removal, voluntary or involuntary, of Slaves or freemen, from one to another part of the U. States. Nothing appears or is recollected that warrants this latter intention. Nothing in the proceedings of the State conventions indicate such a construction there. Had such been in the construction it is easy to imagine the figure it would have made in many of the states, among the objections to the constitution, and among the numerous amendments to it proposed by the state conventions, not one of which amendments refers to the clause in question.... It falls within the scope of your enquiry, to state the fact, that there was a proposition in the convention, to discriminate between the old and new States, by an article in the Constitution declaring that the aggregate number of representatives from the states thereafter to be admitted, should never exceed that of the states originally adopting the Constitution. The proposition happily was rejected. The effect of such a descrimination, is sufficiently evident.[577]

Speaking about the meaning of migration, Walter Lowrie of Pennsylvania said in the United States Senate:

In the Constitution it is provided that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax," etc. In this debate it seems generally to be admitted, by gentlemen on the opposite side, that these two words are not synonomous; but what their meaning is, they are not so well agreed. One gentlemen tells us, it was intended to prevent slaves from being brought in by land; another gentleman says, it was intended to restrain Congress from interfering with emigration from Europe.

These constructions cannot both be right. The gentlemen who have preceded me on the same side, have advanced a number of pertinent arguments to settle the proper meaning of these words. I, sir, shall not repeat them. Indeed, to me, there is nothing more dry and uninteresting, than discussions to explain the meaning of single words. In the present case, I will only refer to the authority of Mr. Madison and Judge Wilson, who were both members of the Convention, and who gave their construction to these words, long before this question was agitated. Mr. Madison observes, that, to say this clause was intended to prevent emigration does not deserve an answer. And Judge Wilson says, expressly, it was intended to place the new States under the control of Congress, as to the introduction of slaves. The opinion of this latter gentleman is entitled to peculiar weight. After the Convention had labored for weeks on the subject of representation and direct taxes—when those great men were like to separate without obtaining their object, Judge Wilson submitted the provision on this subject, which now stands as a part of your Constitution. Sir, there is no man, from any part of the nation, who understood the system of our Government better than him; not even excepting Virginia, from whence the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Walker) tells us, we have all our great men.[578]

Madison wrote on the same question that year in a letter to Monroe:

I have been truly astonished at some of the doctrines and declarations to which the Missouri question has led; and particularly so at the interpretation put on the terms "migration or importation &c." Judging from my own impressions I shd. deem it impossible that the memory of any one who was a member of the Genl. Convention, could favor an opinion that the terms did not exclusively refer to migration & importation, into the U. S. Had they been understood in that Body in the sense now put on them, it is easy to conceive the alienation they would have there created in certain States: and no one can decide better than yourself the effect they would had in the State conventions, if such a meaning had been avowed by the advocates of the Constitution. If a suspicion had existed of such a construction, it wd. at least have made a conspicuous figure among the amendments proposed to the Instrument.[579]

There was very little objection to the provision for the return of fugitive slaves. On the twenty-ninth of August, it was agreed that:

"If any Person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, He or She shall not be discharged from such services or labor in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape; but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor."

which passed in the affirmative (Ayes—11; noes—0.)

It was moved and seconded to strike out the two last clauses of the 17 article [580]

On the same day when the question came up again:

Mr. Butler moved to insert after art: XV. "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the U—States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor," which was agreed to nem: con:[581]

The Committee of Style reported:

No person legally held to service or labour in one state, escaping into another, shall in consequence of regulations subsisting therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.[582]

On the thirteenth of September,

On motion of Mr. Randolph the word "servitude" was struck out, and "service" (unanimously) inserted, the former being thought to express the condition of slaves, & the latter the obligations of free persons.[583]

Two days later:

Art. IV. sect 2. parag: 3. the term "legally" was struck out, and "under the laws thereof" inserted (after the word "State,") in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term (legal) equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view——[584]

The Constitution provided then:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law of Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.[585]

FOOTNOTES:

[530] In the preparation of these documents we used the notes and journals of Yates, McHenry and Madison and the subsequent writings of the framers of the Federal Constitution, but these extracts of the actual proceedings are copied from Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention.

[531] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 31-32.

[532] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 35-38.

[533] Ibid., I, pp. 39-40.

[534] Records of the Federal Convention, I, p. 40.

[535] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 152-153.

[536] Ibid., I, pp. 200-202.

[537] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 205-206.

[538] Ibid., p. 208.

[539] Records of the Federal Convention, I, p. 227.

[540] Ibid., I, p. 243.

[541] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 523, 524.

[542] Ibid., I. p. 542.

[543] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 559-560.

[544] Ibid., I, p. 567.

[545] Records of the Federal Convention, pp. 575-576.

[546] Ibid., I, p. 579.

[547] Ibid., pp. 580-583.

[548] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 580-583.

[549] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 586-588.

[550] Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 589-590.

[551] Records of the Federal Convention, pp. 603—605.

[552] Ibid., II, p. 168.

[553] Records of the Federal Convention, pp. 182-183.

[554] Dickenson thought that unless the number of representatives given the large States was reduced the smaller ones would be encouraged to import slaves.

Art: VII. sect. 3. resumed.—Mr. Dickenson moved to postpone this in order to reconsider Art: Iv. sect. 4. and to limit the number of representatives to be allowed to the large States. Unless this were done the small States would be reduced to entire insignificancy, and encouragement given to the importation of slaves. Records of the Federal Convention, II, 356, 570, 590.

[555] Ibid., III, p. 253.

[556] Ibid., III., pp. 155-156.

[557] Records of the Federal Convention, III, p. 333.

[558] Ibid., III, pp. 342-343.

[559] Records of the Federal Convention, II, p. 95.

[560] Records of the Federal Convention, p. 183.

[561] Records of the Federal Convention, II, pp. 220-221.

[562] Records of the Federal Convention, II, pp. 364-365.

[563] Records of the Federal Convention, II, pp. 369-375.

[564] Ibid., II, p. 378.

[565] Records of the Federal Convention, II, pp. 415-417.

[566] Maryland Historical Magazine, December, 1909.

[567] McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, pp. 311-313.

[568] P. L. Ford, Essay on the Convention, pp. 161-166.

[569] Records of the Federal Convention, III, pp. 210-213.

[570] Elliot, Debates, IV, pp. 277-286.

[571] Robertson, Debates of the Convention of Virginia, pp. 321-345.

[572] Annals of Congress, 1st session, I, pp. 339-340.

[573] Elliot, Debates, IX, pp. 72-104.

[574] Annals of Congress, 1st session, II, pp. 1200-1201.

[575] Records of the Federal Convention, III, p. 367.

[576] Annals of Congress, Fifth Cong., 2d Session, II, pp. 1660, 1968-2005.

[577] Documentary History of the Constitution, V, pp. 303-306.

[578] Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Cong., 1st Session, I, pp, 202-203.

[579] Documentary History of the Constitution, V, p. 307.

[580] Records of the Federal Convention, II, p. 446.

[581] Ibid., pp. 453-454.

[582] Ibid., pp. 601-602.

[583] Records of the Federal Convention, II, p. 607.

[584] Ibid., p. 628.

[585] Ibid., p. 662.

SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES

Patrick Snead.—Among the most interesting of all fugitive slaves who escaped into Canada was Patrick Snead of Savannah, Georgia. He was as white as his master, but was born a slave. Upon the death of his first master he fell into the hands of one of the sons who died when Snead was about fifteen. His next master was a rather reckless man. Snead's master always promised the slave's mother to give him his freedom as soon as the boy could take care of himself, but this was never done. Snead was sent to school a little by his mother so that he could spell quite well. He had no religious training but was allowed to attend a Sunday school for colored children. Upon approaching manhood Snead was put to the cooper's trade, which he learned in five years.

Up to this time Snead had fared well, but at length his master fell sick and died without freeing the slave according to his promise. Snead was then sold to pay the fees of his master's physician, who later sold him to a wholesale merchant for $500. In the service of this merchant Snead proved to be a much smarter man than many of those who worked with him. In later years, however, he had to work so hard as to injure his health to the extent that he suffered considerably. Moreover, Snead was never allowed any money and was restricted in his social contact with the people of his group in other parts of the community.

He was later sold to another master, being given in exchange for a woman, two children and $100. He was still employed in the cooper's trade. Required to make only 18 barrels a week and capable of making more than twice as many, he began to receive an income of his own under the good treatment of his last master. During this period, however, his desire for liberty grew stronger and stronger because of the hardships of his people and then he heard of their opportunities in the free States and in Liberia. He, therefore, made his escape in July, 1851, and reached Canada in safety. After remaining two years in Canada he decided to enter the employ of the proprietor of the Cataract House on the American side of Niagara Falls. What happened then is best told in his own language. He says:

"Then a constable of Buffalo came in, on Sunday after dinner, and sent the barkeeper into the dining-room for me. I went into the hall, and met the constable,—I had my jacket in my hand, and was going to put it up. He stepped up to me. 'Here, Watson,' (this was the name I assumed on escaping,) 'you waited on me, and I'll give you some change.' His fingers were then in his pocket, and he dropped a quarter dollar on the floor. I told him, 'I have not waited on you—you must be mistaken in the man, and I don't want another waiter's money.' He approached,—I suspected, and stepped back toward the dining-room door. By that time he made a grab at me, caught me by the collar of my shirt and vest,—then four more constables, he had brought with him, sprung on me,—they dragged me to the street door—there was a jamb—I hung on by the doorway. The head constable shackled my left hand. I had on a new silk cravat twice around my neck; he hung on to this, twisting it till my toungue lolled out of my mouth, but he could not start me through the door. By this time the waiters pushed through the crowd,—there were three hundred visitors there at the time,—and Smith and Graves, colored waiters, caught me by the hands,—then the others came on, and dragged me from the officers by main force. They dragged me over chairs and everything, down to the ferry way. I got into the cars, and the waiters were lowering me down, when the constables came and stopped them, saying, 'Stop that murderer!'—they called me a murderer! Then I was dragged down the steps by the waiters, and flung into the ferry boat. The boatmen rowed me to within fifty feet of the Canada shore—into Canada water—when the head boatman in the other boat gave the word to row back. They did accordingly,—but they could not land me at the usual place on account of the waiters. So they had to go down to Suspension Bridge; they landed me, opened a way through the crowd—shackled me, pushed me into a carriage, and away we went. The head constable then asked me 'if I knew any person in Lockport.' I told him 'no,' Then, 'In Buffalo?' 'No.' 'Well then,' said he, 'let's go to Buffalo—Lockport is too far.' We reached Buffalo at ten o'clock at night, when I was put in jail. I told the jailer I wished he would be so good as to tell a lawyer—to come round to the jail. Mr.—— came, and I engaged him for my lawyer. When the constables saw that pretending to know no one in Buffalo, I had engaged one of the best lawyers in the place, they were astonished. I told them that 'as scared as they thought I was, I wanted them to know that I had my senses about me.' The court was not opened until nine days; the tenth day my trial commenced. The object was, to show some evidence as if of murder, so that they could take me to Baltimore. On the eleventh day the claimant was defeated, and I was cleared at 10 A.M. After I was cleared, and while I was yet in the court room, a telegraphic despatch came from a Judge in Savannah, saying that I was no murderer, but a fugitive slave. However, before a new warrant could be got out, I was in a carriage and on my way. I crossed over into Canada, and walked thirty miles to the Clifton House."—Benjamin Drew, A North-Side View of Slavery, pp. 102-104.

White Women Enslaved.—"A New Hampshire gentleman went down into Louisiana, many years ago, to take a plantation. He pursued the usual method; borrowing money largely to begin with, paying high interest, and clearing off his debt, year by year, as his crops were sold. He followed another custom there; taking a Quadroon wife: a mistress, in the eye of the law, since there can be no legal marriage between the whites and persons of any degree of color: but, in nature and in reason, the woman he took home was his wife. She was a well-principled, amiable, well-educated woman; and they lived happily together for twenty years. She had only the slightest possible tinge of color. Knowing the law, that the children of slaves are to follow the fortunes of the mother, she warned her husband that she was not free, an ancestress having been a slave, and the legal act of manumission having never been performed. The husband promised to look to it: but neglected it. At the end of twenty years, one died, and the other shortly followed, leaving daughters; whether two or three, I have not been able to ascertain with positive certainty; but I have reason to believe three, of the ages of fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen; beautiful girls, with no perceptible mulatto tinge. The brother of their father came down from New Hampshire to settle the affairs; and he supposed, as every one else did, that the deceased had been wealthy. He was pleased with his nieces, and promised to carry them back with him into New Hampshire, and (as they were to all appearance perfectly white) to introduce them into the society which by education they were fitted for. It appeared, however, that their father had died insolvent. The deficiency was very small: but it was necessary to make an inventory of the effects, to deliver to the creditors. This was done by the brother,—the executor. Some of the creditors called on him, and complained that he had not delivered in a faithful inventory. He declared he had. No: the number of slaves was not accurately set down: he had omitted the daughters. The executor was overwhelmed with horror, and asked time for thought. He went round among the creditors, appealing to their mercy: but they answered that these young ladies were 'a first-rate article,' too valuable to be relinquished. He next offered, (though he had himself six children, and very little money,) all he had for the redemption of his nieces; alleging that it was more than they would bring in the market for house or field labor. This was refused with scorn. It was said that there were other purposes for which the girls would bring more than for field or house labor. The uncle was in despair, and felt strongly tempted to wish their death, rather than their surrender to such a fate as was before them. He told them, abruptly, what was their prospect. He declares that he never before beheld human grief; never before heard the voice of anguish. They never ate, nor slept, nor separated from each other, till the day when they were taken into the New Orleans slave market. There they were sold, separately, at high prices, for the vilest of purposes: and where each is gone, no one knows. They are for the present, lost. But they will arise to the light in the day of retribution."—Harriet Martineau, Views on Slavery and Emancipation, pp. 8-9.

The White Slave.—"A slaveholder, living in Virginia, owned a beautiful slave woman, who was almost white. She became the mother of a child, a little boy, in whose veins ran the blood of her master, and the closest observer could not detect in its appearance any trace of African descent. He grew to be two or three years of age, a most beautiful child and the idol of his mother's heart, when the master concluded, for family reasons, to send him away. He placed him in the care of a friend living in Guilford County, North Carolina, and made an agreement that he should receive a common-school education, and at a suitable age be taught some useful trade. Years passed; the child grew to manhood, and having received a good common-school education, and learned the shoemaker's trade, he married an estimable young white woman, and had a family of five or six children. He had not the slightest knowledge of the taint of African blood in his veins, and no one in the neighborhood knew that he was the son of an octoroon slave woman. He made a comfortable living for his family, was a good citizen, a member of the Methodist Church, and was much respected by all who knew him. In course of time his father, the Virginian slaveholder, died, and when the executors came to settle up the estate, they remembered the little white boy, the son of the slave woman, and knowing that by law—such law!—he belonged to the estate, and must be by this time a valuable piece of property, they resolved to gain possession of him. After much inquiry and search they learned of his whereabouts, and the heir of the estate, accompanied by an administrator, went to Guilford County, North Carolina, to claim his half-brother as a slave. Without making themselves known to him, they sold him to a negro trader, and gave a bill of sale, preferring to have a sum in ready money instead of a servant who might prove very valuable, but who would, without doubt, give them a great deal of trouble. He had been free all his life, and they knew he would not readily yield to the yoke of bondage. All this time the victim was entirely unconscious of the cruel fate in store for him.

"His wife had been prostrated by a fever then prevalent in the neighborhood, and he had waited upon her and watched by her bedside, until he was worn out with exhaustion and loss of sleep. Several neighbor women coming in one evening to watch with the invalid, he surrendered her to their care, and retired to seek the rest he so much needed. That night the slave-dealer came with a gang of ruffians, burst into the house and seized their victim as he lay asleep, bound him, after heroic struggles on his part, and dragged him away. When he demanded the cause of his seizure, they showed him the bill of sale they had received, and informed him that he was a slave. In this rude, heartless manner the intelligence that he belonged to the African race was first imparted to him, and the crushing weight of his cruel destiny came upon him when totally unprepared. His captors hurried him out of the neighborhood, and took him toward the Southern slave markets. To get him black enough to sell without question, they washed his face in tan ooze, and kept him tied in the sun, and to complete his resemblance to a mulatto, they cut his heir short and seared it with a hot iron to make it curly. He was sold in Georgia or Alabama, to a hard master, by whom he was cruelly treated.

"Several months afterward he succeeded in escaping, and made his way back to Guilford County, North Carolina. Here he learned that his wife had died a few days after his capture, the shock of that calamity having hastened her death, and that his children were scattered among the neighbors. His master, thinking that he would return to his old home, came in pursuit of him with hounds, and chased him through the thickets and swamps. He evaded the dogs by wading in a mill-pond, and climbing a tree, where he remained several days. Dr. George Swain, a man of much influence in the community, had an interview with him, and, hearing the particulars of his seizure, said he thought the proceedings were illegal. He held a consultation with several lawyers, and instituted proceedings in his behalf. But the unfortunate victim of man's cruelty did not live to regain his freedom. He had been exposed and worried so much, trailed by dogs and forced to lie in swamps and thickets, that his health was broken down and he died before the next term of court."—Levi Coffin, Reminiscences, pp. 29-31.

A Slave of Royal Blood.—"Among the many persons of color whom I visited at Philadelphia, was a woman of singular intelligence and good breeding. A friend was with me. She received us with the courtesy and easy manners of a gentlewoman. She appeared to be between thirty and forty years of age—of pure African descent, with a handsome expressive countenance and a graceful person. Her mother, who had been stolen from her native land at an early age, was the daughter of a king, and is now, in her eighty-fifth year, the parent stem of no less than 182 living branches. When taken by the slavers, she had with her a piece of gold as an ornament, to denote her rank. Of this she was of course deprived; and a solid bar of the same metal, which her parent sent over to America for the purchase of her freedom, shared the same fate. Christiana Gibbons, who is thus the granddaughter of a prince of the Ebo tribe, was bought when about fifteen years of age, by a woman who was struck by her interesting appearance, and emancipated her. Her benefactress left her, at her death, a legacy of 8,000 dollars. The whole of this money was lost by the failure of a bank, in which her legal trustee (a man of the name of James Morrison, since dead) had placed it in his own name. She had other property, acquired by her own industry, and affording a rent of 500 dollars a year. Her agent, however, Colonel Myers, though indebted to her for many attentions and marks of kindness during sickness, had neglected to remit her the money from Savannah, in Georgia, where the estate is situated; and, when I saw her, she was living, with her husband and son, on the fruits of her labor.

"She had not been long resident in Philadelphia, whither she had come to escape the numerous impositions and annoyances to which she was exposed in Georgia. Her husband was owner of a wharf in Savannah, worth eight or ten thousand dollars. It is much feared that the greater part of this property will be lost, or not recovered without great difficulty. I was induced to call upon her, in consequence of a letter I had received from Mr. Kingsley, of whom I have before spoken. He had long been acquainted with her, and spoke of her to me in the highest terms; wishing that I should see what he considered a 'good specimen of the race.'

"We found her, indeed, a very remarkable woman; though it is probable that there are many among the despised slaves as amiable and accomplished as herself. Such, at least, was the account she gave us of their condition, that we felt convinced of the superiority possessed by many, in moral worth and intellectual acuteness, above their oppressors."—E. S. Abdy, Journal of a Residence and Tour in the United States of America from April, 1833, to October, 1834, pp. 346-348.

BOOK REVIEWS

The Virgin Islands of the United States of America. By Luther K. Zabriskie, Former Vice-Consul of the United States at St. Thomas. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London, 1918. Pp. 339. Price $4.00.

This is an historical and descriptive work containing facts, figures and resources about a country ninety per cent of the population of which belongs to the Negro race. It is a detailed account of practically every interest of concern to the tourist, the merchant, the geographer and the historian. It is made still more valuable by its one hundred and nine illustrations and two maps which clearly demonstrate what the United States Government has received in return for the purchase price of $25,000,000.

The first effort of the author is to give a short sketch of the history of the Virgin Islands. He then takes up the question of purchasing the islands. In discussing these political and historic questions, however, the author is too brief and neglectful of important problems which the student of history would like to know. The author no doubt carefully avoided these questions for the reasons that he was then and still is in the diplomatic service of the United States. The book is chiefly concerned with the actual government of the group, the occupations of the people, and the place of the islands in the commerce of the world.

Largely interested, therefore, in those things which generally concern a consul, Mr. Zabriskie has written a valuable commercial treatise. He explains such things as steamer service, harbor facilities, banking, currency, sanitation, transportation, cattle raising, agriculture, manufactures, imports and exports. The last part of the book is exclusively devoted to the most recent history of the Virgin Islands. There is a discussion of the sale negotiations, the convention between the United States and Denmark, the announcement of the sale, the formal transfer of the islands, the farewell service and the temporary government provided. This part of the book is not merely descriptive. It contains the actual documents as in the case of the convention between the United States and Denmark, which is given in the English and Danish languages.

Your Negro Neighbor. By Benjamin Brawley. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1918. Pp. 100. Price 60 cents.

In this book Dean Brawley does not reach the standard set in some of his other works, but he has here some facts and suggestions which are worth while. The book begins with an appeal to the people of the United States in behalf of the Negroes who, despite their many grievances, are now fighting to make the world safe for democracy although their own country is not safe for them. In directing these remarks to the citizens of this country the author gives in detail the Negroes' grounds for complaint and shows how because of the unjust treatment of the blacks in the United States this country has become an object of suspicion in South America, where the color line is not known.

The second chapter of the book is a statement of the Negroes' place in history. This, however, is too brief and unscientific to be of much value to one in quest of facts of Negro history. It seems unnecessary here also to devote a special chapter to such isolated facts of history in writing a book dealing with a social problem.

The chapter bearing on the Negro as an industrial factor contains interesting material taken from statistical reports. The author discusses such questions as the reliability of Negro laborers, the antagonism of the labor unions, housing conditions, and the like. Taking up the institution of lynching, Dean Brawley goes over old ground but gives striking facts to portray this blot on the American civilization. Then without showing any close connection between the two the author takes up Negro education since the Civil War. Here we see another failure to treat an important question intensively and scientifically. He then gives a sketch of Joanna P. Moore, a missionary of much worth, takes up certain critics and their fallacies, asserts the possibility of the race and closes with a plea for a moralist.

This in brief is the work recently produced by a man who is undertaking to address the American people on almost every phase of Negro life and history. This work, however, is merely the author's observations or impressions of the Negroes among the whites. The very work itself shows that Dean Brawley is undertaking too much. He is best as a literary critic but in sociology and history his works do not measure up to standard.

Orville Holliday.

The American Cavalryman. By Henry F. Downing. The Neale Publishing Company, New York, 1917. Pp. 306. Price $1.50.

This is a Liberian romance written by Henry F. Downing, a colored man who evidently spent some years in Liberia. The diction is good, the style pleasing, and the story interesting, but it is not a sympathetic portrayal of African character and customs. It is written from a white man's point of view and shows a tendency to regard the white man's civilization of today as the only true standard. He shows, however, that he does not always approve of the European method of dealing with the African. While describing an unequal contest between the cavalryman and natives, he says: "But alas! in war, as in finance and love, victory does not always smile upon the most deserving. She usually favors the numerically stronger side; that is, unless the less numerous party is armed with quick firing guns, dumdum bullet, and other harmless weapons that Europeans think it criminal to employ against one another, but cheerfully use to Christianize and civilize the poor helpless black African."

The chief value of the work lies in its portrayal of native customs, some of which are beautiful, some wholly barbarous and all more or less tinctured with superstition. But, when we pause to think how rife superstition still is among all so-called civilized peoples, we conclude that it is a belief hard to eradicate from human nature. Even in our own country people were hanged as witches a little over a hundred years ago.

While cunning and shrewdness are shown to hold an exalted place in the native character, still lying and cheating, when discovered, are severely punished. Loyalty to friends and fidelity to pledges are held in great esteem. Human life does not seem to be valued very highly judging from the readiness with which a chief extinguished it by having all disloyal or disobedient followers beheaded at a moment's notice. It is evident throughout, however, that human nature is the same in civilized and uncivilized peoples.

There is no attempt to portray the history of Liberia in these pages, a thing which in my opinion would have made the work stronger and far more valuable. It does give a fair picture of Monrovia, the capital city, and presents, to some extent, the need for wise and just administration and the necessity of funds to improve the city and endow it with parks, libraries, and places of amusement. The value of the American constabulary force is felt and the importance of increased communications, union and helpfulness between the government and the tribes are emphasized. Altogether it is a work worth writing and worth reading, although it does not give enough prominence to the nobler traits of the native character.

Ida Gibbs Hunt.

Education for Life. By Francis G. Peabody, Vice-President of the Board of Trustees. The Story of Hampton Institute, told in Connection with the Fiftieth Anniversary of the School. Doubleday, Page and Company, New York, 1918. Pp. 393. Price $2.50.

This work has for its background a brief account of the Negro during the Civil War and the Reconstruction, serving as the occasion for the beginning of the successful career of General Samuel Chapman Armstrong, the founder of Hampton Institute. The actual history of the institution appears under such captions as the beginnings of Hampton, the years of promise, the coming of the Indian, the years of fulfilment, the end of an era, the coming of Frissell, and the expansion of Hampton. The author has endeavored also to explain the relations of Hampton and the South and to forecast the future possibilities of this school. The work is well printed and beautifully illustrated.

In the Springfield Republican of July 6, 1918, A. L. Dawes said in her review of this work:

"Hampton institute has chosen a fitting occasion, the completion of fifty years of life and work, to issue the history of its achievement. It comes at the end of one distinct epoch, and the beginning of another, when it is of much value to consider the results which make a foundation for new progress. It is a record of wonderful achievement, and this amazing institution may well be proud of it. We are led from the huddled camp of contrabands in 1868 to the allied armies in 1918; from a crowd of men and women without a past and seemingly without a future—even a possibility only to the eyes of patriotism and faith—we are led in these pages to the ranks of efficient soldiers and brilliant officers fighting with southern men whose grandfathers called their grandfathers slaves!

"Faith has become pride and patriotism has become an individual possession in a resurrected race. The book might well have been called by that title—'The Resurrection of a Race'—but its distinguished author, in calling it 'Education for Life,' has chosen to consider Hampton's double mission to the race and to the world in connection with education. This latter aspect of its work makes the book particularly pertinent at this time of world reconstruction. This attractive volume will be read with interest and satisfaction by the many widespread friends of Hampton Institute, and it will also be sought with eagerness by another audience, the large public, which is seeking new theories of education for a new world. This group will find it a clear and compelling statement of a new philosophy of education worked out there, heretofore neither recognized nor understood outside, but limited either to manual training or vocational education.

"Hampton has been fortunate in its biographer. It is a labor of love, by Rev. Francis G. Peabody, one of the few remaining trustees whose service covers its three epochs and whose friendship has inspired its three principals. Perhaps no one else has so entered into the life of the place. He has made himself one with pupils and faculty and trustees and public in such friendly fashion that he may rightly say 'we' from any point of view. His many readers will look for noteworthy diction amounting to a new use of words, grace of speech and charm of phrase, a startling power of insight, a passion for social service and the revelation of the spiritual in all human affairs, with the inspiration which compels. These things Dr. Peabody's readers expect of him, but it might have been questioned whether he could write a history. In this book he has shown us that history is the story of life, and he has used all these abilities to discover and fitly express the life which has become Hampton Institute. Not the least of all his skill has appeared in what he has left out—so that the book is never dull though it is crowded with facts. Everything is here that is needed to answer the questions of any objector, and what is more difficult, of any friend. The illustrations are not only interesting, but valuable footnotes to history, and there are a number of collections of statistics at the end of the book of incomparable worth to the student of these subjects; we cannot enough commend their range and selection.

"Among the rest, we notice a just commendation of the Hampton Club in this city. All through the book explanation forestalls objection, while old friends find new information and new reasons for half-understood methods. Such are the accumulating exposition of the Hampton idea, and the description of circumstances and resources which condition all action, and determine the measure of progress. Those who know and love this wonderful place will be gratified at the stress laid on the 'Hampton spirit' of service as the explanation of its success, as well as the constant recognition of the spiritual in the methods as well as the aims of this hothouse of missionary effort. No one familiar with the school would have found the record complete without the stressing of this element at once its motive and its life. Few could have so well defined that elusive but forceful thing—'the Hampton spirit.'

"It needed all the writer's ability to set forth fitly the ardent Armstrong and the able Frissell—witness his success in this characterization of them:

"'Never were two administrative officers more unlike each other. Armstrong was impetuous, magnetic, volcanic; Frissell was reserved, sagacious, prudent. The gifts of the one were those of action; the strength of the other was in discretion.'

"He has given us all fresh knowledge of both men. By his choice and collocation of extracts he shows Armstrong not only to have had the enthusiastic impact on his world known to all men, but also a forelooking philosophy which guided him to a definite end. He brings out the long line of unusual circumstances which prepared him for this work, and in repeating the vision in which like a Hebrew prophet the young officer was called to teach the Negroes, the writer shows that work to have been a definite growth. No one who knew Samuel C. Armstrong can ever forget him, or ever describe him, but not one of his wide circle ever failed to be moved by any contact with him to put forth his own powers to their full measure.

"Dr. Peabody does full justice to the help and service of the Freedmen's Bureau, which from the first linked the institution with the government, and to the American Missionary Association, which made its beginning possible. He further shows many missionary and philanthropic sources upon which it has always drawn. If he halts a little in enthusiastic justice to Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, who began this crusade, he has evidently done it best—an unexpected best it must be said, from a Harvard professor! Samuel Armstrong was moved by his Christian impulses and missionary inheritance to help these needy people, but there could hardly have been a more unpromising opportunity.

"The task which Armstrong took up was greater than the present generation can imagine. Dr. Peabody has recognized this by a clear and dispassionate description of the situation in 1868, an analysis of the greatest value to the present-day reader. Armstrong's high courage and faith brought him to the day when he saw the race well on the high road to its place in the sun, before he dropped his mantle on the shoulders of his successor. It is doubtful, perhaps, whether he saw clearly how much he had done nor how firmly he had established his principles of the necessity of work and respect for it. Dr. Peabody brings out very distinctly this his great achievement, but it is superfluous to quote from a story which everyone will want to read for himself.

"Mindful of the fact that education depends upon personal contact, this book deals largely with the work of the two outstanding personalities, who have made the institution what it is. Hollis Burke Frissell, who took up the work of principal when Armstrong left it twenty-five years ago—'Dr. Frissell' as everyone knew him—proved to be in some ways one of the great men of his time, certainly so if you give a high value to education. As one of his close friends has said of him, 'He invariably grew to the measure of the stature that his work called for.'

"If Dr. Peabody has failed at all in the hard task of describing one in whom the full round of qualities blended into the white light of simplicity it is perhaps in not making his virility sufficiently evident. The first and last impression Frissell made was of lovableness, and he was so intent on getting work done that he never cared to be known as its author. Therefore, even his friends did not always discover his strength or sometimes his greatness. He carried on the school to a phenominal success and he developed more than one beginning to a definite policy.

"In the latter part of Gen. Armstrong's career a simple occurrence changed the whole character of the school. From it the school developed into a world institution. When the government asked Gen. Armstrong to continue the education of seventeen Indians already begun by Capt. Pratt, the task was undertaken as a civil and Christian duty, but thus was started a government policy, and an educational experiment which, carried on and broadened to other races under Dr. Frissell, has changed the face of our own land and altered the conditions of backward races the world over. Because of this great historical fact, Hampton should always keep up its Indian department, which witnesses to the beginning of its world relation.

"The passing of time after the Civil War and emancipation also made possible to Dr. Frissell the development of another policy, that of the unification of the North and the South. This was something very near his heart, and for it he started the southern education board—which was his creation more fully than Dr. Peabody explains—the Jeans board, much of the southern work of the Rockefeller or general educational board and other well-known agencies to this end. And to accomplish the reconciliation of the races and the regions he gave the vital force which finally cost him his life. The future will render this service its due meed of praise, as the writer so well sets forth, a service carried on in the midst of misunderstanding and sharp criticism.

"Dr. Peabody has devoted himself especially on bringing out the growth of Dr. Frissell's carefully-thought-out educational ideals, whereby he added the value of work to the necessity of it in a complete education. Under Frissell, as is so well shown, Hampton entered on its second stage, its relation to the philosophy of education. Men came from all over the world to study the question of the training of native races. Inspired by his work, Frissell saw the possibilities on every side, and looked far into the future. Thus, as has been said, his set purpose broadened the school to include Porto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, and even Africa, making it what he loved to call it, a 'race laboratory.' That he succeeded appears in the constant stream of officials, educators and philanthropists from all over the globe coming to Hampton that they may study and copy its methods. The vision of the future which was given to Dr. Frissell was not so much a vision of a new race, as with Armstrong; it was for Frissell a vision of a new humanity.

"It is this vision of 'Education for life' which Dr. Peabody brings out so clearly—both its meaning and its value. The oldest friends of Hampton have hardly understood it before, so well does he explain it, and so thoroughly does he show that its purpose is to make men and women. Artisans and skilled workmen come out of it, but its first purpose is to develop individuals and all its interests tend to this end. This explains its limitations also, and answers many complaints. The white teacher who recently left because there was 'no future' for her own career; the educator who complained of a system which continued to educate on general lines when some vocational diversion would be more profitable; those who support the objections of the 'Crisis' that Hampton is not a university—all these critics fail to understand the new philosophy of Hampton and its dominant human motive. It would be a great mistake if, as appears to be hinted here, any concessions should be made to the demand of these last critics, whose aims would destroy the whole idea of Hampton, and its value as a world experiment. The author of the book and distinguished student of social ethics so strongly brings out its claim to a new education, for a new world that (to repeat) the reader cannot fail to inquire if this is the solution of the future in our forthcoming new world.

"Dr. Peabody brings us to the beginning of the third era and pays a deserved tribute to the new principal. Rev. James E. Gregg, who enters on the task at a critical time. Just now, when the race question is acute both here and everywhere, and when the new democracy is demanding a new education, there could hardly be a greater opportunity for the man or the school.

This inadequate sketch of a most informing and inspiring book may well be closed with a few paragraphs which sum up the aims of Hampton Institute:

"'In short, the fundamental issue in all education for life is between a training to make things and a training to make character. Is a man to be taught carpentering primarily that a house shall be well built, or that in the building the man himself shall get intelligence, self-mastery and skill?'

"'The principle was definitely accepted that these shops and classes were maintained, not as sources of profit, but as factors in an education for life. Young men and women were not to be regarded as satisfactory products of Hampton Institute because each could do one thing and get good wages for doing it, but because each had been trained to apply mind and will to the single task, and had made it not only a way of living, but a way of life.'

"'Trade education as conceived gradually developed and finally realized at Hampton Institute is a development of the person through the trade, rather than a development of the trade through the person. The product is not primarily goods, but goodness; not so much profit as personality.... These students become delivered from the benumbing conditions of modern industry by the emancipating and humanizing effect of the Hampton scheme of industrial training, and those who are thus initiated in a large view of their small opportunities are likely to find their way, not only to those occupations, which are still open at the top, but to those resources of happiness which are discovered when work has become a vocation, and labor has contributed to life.'"

NOTES

In the introduction to Book II of Negro Folk-Songs the author, Mrs. Natalie Curtis Burlin, has some interesting paragraphs showing the connection of this music with certain origins in Africa. She says:

"That Negro folk-song is indeed an offshoot from an African root, nobody who has heard Africans sing or even beat the drum can deny. The American Negroes are sprung, of course, from many tribes; but whereas the native traffic in slaves and captives brought individuals from widely separated parts of the continent to the coasts and thus to the European slavers, the great mass of Negroes that filled the slave ships destined for America probably belonged—according to some authorities—to the big linguistic stock called Bantu, comprising some fifty million people south of the equator. The Zulu and Ndau tribes, whose songs I studied, are of this stock. Yet, as there are over a hundred million Negroes on the Dark Continent, whose different traits are probably represented in some form in this country, all statements as to musical derivations could be made with final authority only by one who had studied comprehensively the music of many different tribes in Africa. This much, however, one may most emphatically affirm: though the Negro, transplanted to other lands, absorbed much musically from a surrounding civilization, yet the characteristics which give to his music an interest worthy of particular study are precisely those which differentiate Negro songs from the songs of the neighboring white man; they are racial traits, and the black man brought them from the Dark Continent.

"The most obvious point of demarcation between Negro music and European is found, of course, in the rhythm. The simpler rhythms natural to the white man (I speak of folk-music, the people's song, not of the elaborate creations of trained musicians) are usually even and symmetrical. Throughout western Europe and in English and Latin countries, the accents fall as a rule on the stressed syllables of the spoken tongue and on the regular beats of the music. The opposite is the case in Negro songs: here the rhythms are uneven, jagged, and, at a first hearing, eccentric, for the accents fall most frequently on the short notes and on the naturally unstressed beats, producing what we call 'syncopation' of a very intricate and highly developed order. The peculiarity of this syncopation is best explained to the layman by drawing attention to the way in which the natural rhythms of the English language are distorted to fit the rhythm of Negro music: where the white man would sing, 'Go down Moses,' the Negro chants, 'Go down, Moses,' while a phrase like 'See my Mother,' becomes in the mouth of the colored singer 'See my Mother.' These identical accents are found in even the wordless vowel refrains of native African songs. Rhythmically the Negro folk-song has far more variety of accent than the European; it captivates the ear and the imagination with its exciting vitality and with its sense of alertness and movement. For this reason Negro rhythms and white man imitations of them popularized as 'rag-time' have spread far and wide and have conquered the world to-day. The black man has by nature a highly organized rhythmic sense. A totally uneducated Negro, dancing or playing the bones, is often a consummate artist in rhythm, performing with utter abandon and yet with flawless accuracy. My African informant, Kamba Simango, thought nothing of singing one rhythm, beating another with his hands and dancing a third—and all at once!

"Melodically as well as rhythmically, American Negro songs possess distinct characteristics. One of these is a very prevalent use of the pentatonic or five-tone scale, corresponding to the black keys of the piano. If one comes upon a group of colored men unconsciously humming or whistling at work, most often it is the five-tone scale that utters their musical thoughts. This scale—along with other scales—is heard in black Africa also, and in the music of many simple peoples in different parts of the world. Indeed, just as totally unrelated races at certain stages of culture seem to trace many of the same rudimentary symbols and designs on pottery and in textiles, so in music, the archaic simplicity of the five-tone scale would seem almost a basic human art-instinct. Yet the highly developed civilization and the carefully defined musical systems of China and other nations of the farthest East retain the pentatonic scale in wide use, the Chinese in their philosophical and mystical theories of music, linking the five-tones symbolically with the heavenly bodies. It is surprising how much variety can be achieved with those five tones. One of the most graceful melodies that I know in all music is the popular Chinese 'lily Song' which I recorded from a Chinese actor and which possesses the sheer beauty of outline and the firm delicacy of a Chinese drawing. Indeed, the melodic possibilities of the five-tone scale, containing a charm absolutely peculiar to that scale, instead of being limited, seem almost endless.

"American Negro music, is however, by no means restricted to this tonality, for we find a broad indulgence in the major and minor modes of modern art, and also there are many songs in which occur tones foreign to those scales most common of which is perhaps the minor, or flat, seventh. Then, too, there are songs framed in the scale with a sharp fourth; and we also find, though more rarely in Negro music, the augmented interval of three semitones. Those of us who have noted Arabic folk-songs are accustomed to associate this latter interval with Semitic music; occurring as it does in African music also it reminds us of the contact between the black population of Africa and the Semitic peoples in the white north of the continent whose caravan trade brought them into communication with the more savage interior, while their ships touched at ports along the coasts and even landed colonists on the Eastern shores, where Arab trade across the Red Sea must have existed since early Bible times. As the age-old slave traffic brought captives from African tribes out from the heart of black Africa to the north, we can readily see how, since the very dawn of history, Negro and Semitic cultures must have touched. One of the Bantu legends in my collection from Portuguese East Africa is probably of Semitic origin, and the song which it embodies seems also tinged with foreign color. Without doubt, Semitic tunes and musical intervals found their way to African ears, while, on the other side, African Negro drum-beats and syncopations must have influenced Berber, Moorish and thus perhaps even Spanish rhythms.

"Another characteristic of the Negro, musically, is a harmonic sense indicating musical intuition of a high order. This instinct for natural polyphony is made clear in the recording of the Negro songs in this collection, wherein I have noted the four-part harmony as sung extemporaneously by colored boys who had had no musical training whatever. Some of the most beautiful improvisational part-singing that I ever heard arose from the throats of utterly illiterate black laborers in a tobacco factory. One has but to attend a colored church, whether North or South, to hear men and women break naturally into alto, tenor or bass parts (and even subdivisions of these), to realize how instinctively the Negro musical mind thinks harmonies. I have heard players in colored bands perform one part on an instrument and sing another while all those around him were playing and singing still different parts. Yet it has been asserted by some people that the harmonic sense of the Negro is a product of white environment and that the black man owes his intuitive gift to the slave-holders who sang hymns, ballads and popular songs in his hearing! With all due allowance for white influence, which has been great, of course, the fact remains that in savage Africa, remote from European culture, many of the most primitive pagan songs are sung in parts with elaborate interludes on drums tuned to different pitches. Indeed the music of the Dark Continent is rich in polyphonic as well as rhythmic suggestions for the European. Perhaps the war may help to prick some of the vanity of the white race, which, looking down with self-assumed superiority upon other races, is quick to condemn delinquencies as native characteristics, and to ascribe to its own influences anything worthy; whereas the reverse is, alas, all too often the case. Certainly the art of Africa, of India, of the Orient and of North America owes to the Anglo-Saxon only corruption and commercialization. As for American Negro music, those songs that are most like the music of the white people—and they are not few—are the least interesting; they are sentimental, tame, and uneventful both in melody and rhythm. On the other hand, such melodies as 'Go down Moses,' 'Four and Twenty Eiders on Their Knees,' 'Run, Mary, Run,' these speak from the very soul of the black race and no white man could have conceived them. They have a dignity barbaric, aloof and wholly individual which lifts them cloud-high above any 'White' hymns that the Negro might have overheard. Austere as Egyptian bas-relief, simple as Congo sculpture, they are mighty melodies, and they are Negro."

D. Appleton and Company have published for Professor Ulrich B. Phillips of the University of Michigan a volume entitled American Negro Slavery.

Lincoln, the Politician, by T. Aaron Levy, and Latest Lights on Abraham Lincoln, and War Time Memories, works published by Badger and Revell respectively, are two important volumes throwing light on the Civil War.

Among the Washington University Studies has appeared a monograph by C. S. Boucher entitled The Secession and Cooperation Movements in South Carolina, 1848 to 1852.

Transcriber's Notes:

Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as possible, including obsolete and variant spellings and other inconsistencies. The transcriber made the following changes to the text to correct obvious errors:

1. p. 20, "aquaintance" --> "acquaintance"
2. p. 43, "San Fancisco" --> "San Francisco"
3. p. 44, "legisalture" --> "legislature"
4. p. 49, Footnote #46, "Califronia" --> "California"
5. p. 51, "except Lawrence who is" --> "except Lawrence (who is"
6. p. 51, "Distrist" -> "District"
7. p. 52, "ten to eleven years," --> "ten to eleven years),"
8. p. 53, "San Bernardini" --> "San Bernardino"
9. p. 54, "Banjamin" --> "Benjamin" (twice)
10. p. 60, No footnote text for footnote #58.
11. p. 64, No footnote text for footnote #67.
12. p. 64, No footnote text for footnote #68.
13. p. 65, No footnote text for footnote #71.
14. p. 65, No footnote text for footnote #72.
15. p. 82, "fellings" --> "feelings"
16. p. 95, "famlies" --> "families"
17. p. 107, "instrumnts" --> "instruments"
18. p. 119, No footnote marker for footnote #187 in original text.
19. p. 125, No footnote marker for footnote #199 in original text.
20. p. 173, "cannoit" --> "cannot"
21. p. 186, "reesmblance" --> "resemblance"
22. p. 187, "doubt fear" --> "doubt, fear"
23. p. 194, "passsd" --> "passed"
24. p. 195, "decendants" --> "descendants"
25. p. 195, "neices" --> "nieces"
26. p. 208, "talley" --> "tally"
27. p. 210, "Sewanee Reivew" --> "Sewanee Review"
28. p. 222, No footnote marker for footnote #248 in original text.
29. p. 224, "opprobium" --> "opprobrium"
30. p. 225, "comsioner" --> "commissioner"
31. p. 229, "Negreos" --> "Negroes"
32. p. 254, "frofeit" --> "forfeit"
33. p. 264, "Jaunary" --> "January"
34. p. 281, "earthern" --> "earthen"
35. p. 352, No footnote marker for footnote #489 in original text.
36. p. 354, "agressive" --> "aggressive"
37. p. 364, "arest" --> "arrest"
38. p. 371, Footnote #518, "admited" --> "admitted"
39. p. 373, Footnote #521, "Univerity" --> "University"
40. p. 375, "poportions" --> "proportions"
41. p. 383, "and being generally relished," -->
"(and being generally relished,"
42. p. 384, "Adjourned to 10 Oclock)" --> "(Adjourned to 10 Oclock)"
43. p. 390, "overated" --> "overrated"
44. p. 391, "(It was moved by Mr. Rutlidge" -->
"It was moved by Mr. Rutlidge"
45. p. 391, "(Ayes—6; noes))4.)" --> "(Ayes—6; noes—4.)"
46. p. 391, "Ayes—5; noes—5.)" --> "(Ayes—5; noes—5.)"
47. p. 407, "instituton" --> "institution"
48. p. 418, "our of this country" --> "out of this country"
49. p. 423, "gentlman" --> "gentleman"
50. p. 428, The migration "or importation' -->
The migration or importation
51. p. 432, "obtaning" --> "obtaining"
52. p. 439, "administartor" --> "administrator"
53. p. 451, "comprehensvely" --> "comprehensively"
54. Various The footnotes have been re-numbered.

Also, many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes remain as published.