Vol. V—October, 1920—No. 4
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN BEARING ON THE RETURN OF NEGRO SLAVES, 1783-1828[1]
Diplomatic relations bearing on the Negro of the Revolutionary period constitute one of the mooted questions of American foreign policy. Yet although this question was then one of the disturbing factors in our relations with Great Britain, it has hitherto passed unnoticed.[2] As a large number of Negroes were taken from the United States by Great Britain during the Revolutionary War there followed so much effort to secure the return of these Negroes that the subject had to be dealt with in the Treaty of Paris which ended the war in 1783. So numerous were the infractions of the stipulation prohibiting the carrying off of the Negroes and so fruitless were the discussions resulting from the non-fulfillment of the articles in the treaty that several diplomatic representatives were sent on missions to Great Britain, the last of which ended with the Jay Treaty of 1794. Obviously, no satisfactory settlement as to the Negro could then be reached. An array of evidence from the sources[3] shows that the question was frequently discussed and that its significance lies in its absence from the stipulations of the Jay Treaty. It is evident, moreover, that the United States was not satisfied with this treaty and that between Great Britain and this country there was widening a breach which culminated in the War of 1812, during which Great Britain committed the same offence that she did during the war for independence.[4]
How can one account then for the unfavorable attitude of Great Britain toward the return of the Negro fugitives? The humanitarian spirit of Great Britain which, by the celebrated decision of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case in 1772 guaranteed to every man his freedom as soon as he set foot on British soil, extended beyond the limits of the empire. Although this decision of the judge evoked some unfavorable comment, for slavery was the "normal condition of the Negro," his ideas were disseminated by the military authorities defending the Crown in America. During the Revolutionary War many of the British commanders issued proclamations of freedom to the Negro slaves. Lord Dunmore, the dethroned Governor of Virginia, was among the first to issue a proclamation of freedom[5] to all Negroes who would fight for the King. Soon thereafter, Clinton,[6] the Commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, issued a proclamation to the same effect. Still later, Cornwallis issued a proclamation specifying the grant of "freedom and protection" to all Negroes who would seek his command. Whatever motive prompted the issuance of these orders, it is evident that the status of the Negro during this "emergency" as regarded by Great Britain was that of a freeman.
To these proclamations many Negroes responded. For instance, General Greene learned on Long Island that a group of Negroes aggregating two hundred (200) had in July, 1776, sought freedom within the British lines and had been accepted as a regiment in that vicinity.[7] He reported, moreover, to General Washington in 1781 that enough Negroes in North Carolina to form two regiments had sought British freedom and protection and that they were being organized by the British.[8] Whether they came within the British lines as a result of these proclamations or in recognition of the laws of war "it has been computed by good judges" says Ramsay,[9] "that at the evacuation of one part, two hundred and forty-one Negroes and their families were taken off to St. Lucia in one transport, the Scimitar; and that between the years 1775 and 1783, 25,000 Negroes, that is, one-fifth of all the slaves, were taken from the State of South Carolina." In Georgia,[10] there was made a report that the loss was much greater, probably three-fourths or seven-eighths of all the Negroes in the State. Again, from an estimate made at the time, Jefferson observed that about thirty thousand Negroes were taken from Virginia.[11] From the other slave-holding States which were invaded by the British, many other Negroes were carried away from their masters. So effectively was the scheme carried out that fear was expressed throughout the South less the economic position of that section would be threatened. In consequence of such actions on the part of Great Britain, General Washington receded from the position of excluding Negroes from the American Army and took drastic steps in preventing the carrying away of other Negroes by Great Britain.[12]
Considered, therefore, as an American slave in time of peace and an American soldier in time of danger, it is no anomaly that the status of the Negro complicated the negotiations between military representatives of Great Britain and the United States. Extended but fruitless negotiations ensued. A satisfactory settlement of the return of the Negroes seemed impossible. With independence assured through the representatives assembled, the Treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783. Franklin urged in his communication with Oswald, 1779, that the question as to the return of Negroes taken away by Great Britain be adjusted immediately.[13] This suggestion was strengthened by the support given it by the American representative, Henry Laurens, who had been in confinement in London during the war and whose chance arrival on the closing day gave the subject increased importance. Thus credit for the incorporation of the article on the Negro into the Treaty of Paris is given to Henry Laurens.[14]
By the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris,[15] it was stipulated that the British troops should withdraw from the United States without carrying away or destroying any property belonging to the citizens of the United States. In spite of this agreement at the peace conference, this stipulation was not fulfilled by Great Britain. Convincing evidence of an infraction of this stipulation is seen in a letter written by General Washington to Sir Guy Carleton, May 6, 1783, in which the former expressed himself as being surprised to hear that embarkations of Negroes had taken place during the whole of that year.[16] He, moreover, expressed his private opinion to the effect that such an action "is totally different from the letter and spirit of the treaty." A few days thereafter the Virginia delegates in Congress wrote to the Governor of Virginia that they would make this the subject of a "pointed remonstrance from our minister in Europe to the British Court with a demand for reparation and in the meantime urge General Washington to insist on a more faithful observance of that stipulation at New York."[17]
Notwithstanding further orders which were issued by Sir Guy Carleton, May 12, 1783, to prevent the carrying away of any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants many other infractions of the provision were reported.[18] Even General Washington remarked[19] that "some of his own slaves and those of friends living with him were probably carried away to New York." "If by chance," continued he, "you should come at the knowledge of any of them, I will be much obliged by your securing them so that I can obtain them again." So numerous were the violations of this part of the treaty that Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, in a letter written to Vergennes, the Foreign Minister of France, asked for suggestions from France in regard to the infractions of this article of the Treaty of Paris. In it, he expressed the objection of the Crown, which was to the effect that Negroes had come within the British lines under the promise of freedom and protection and that this promise was fulfilled by Great Britain in preference to the stipulation in the treaty.[20]
The situation became more aggravated. The breach between the two countries was gradually widening. Sensing this acute situation, Washington suggested that Carleton meet him in a conference at Orangetown, New Jersey, May, 1783. At one of their meetings Washington called the attention of Carleton to several resolutions passed by Congress relating to the return of all Negroes and other property of American inhabitants taken away by the British forces. Concerning these, Carleton replied that he wished to be considered as giving no construction of the treaty, but that he "conceived it could not have been the intention of the British Government by the treaty of peace to reduce themselves to the necessity of violating their faith to the Negroes who came within the British lines under the proclamation of the predecessors in command."[21] In point of fact, however, he said "delivering up the Negroes to their former masters would be delivering them up—some to execution and others to punishments which would in his own opinion be a dishonorable violation of the public faith." He concluded, nevertheless, that if the sending off of the Negroes should hereafter be declared an infraction of the treaty, "compensation ought to be made by Great Britain to the owners."[22]
In regard to the last suggestion of Carleton, Washington observed that many difficulties would arise in compensating the proprietors for their Negroes. He also thought it impossible to ascertain the value of the Negroes, for the value of a slave, contended he, "consists chiefly in his industry and sobriety." Another difficulty Washington observed was that of identifying the slave. He was of the opinion that the slave would give the wrong name of his master. Washington considered this conduct on the part of General Carleton, moreover, a departure from both the letter and spirit of the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris.
In answer to these contentions Carleton said that as the Negroes were free and secured against their masters they could have no inducement to conceal their true name or that of their masters. In commending compensation Carleton was of the opinion that he was pursuing a course which would operate most for the security of the proprietors. "If the Negroes were left to themselves," he remarked, "numbers of them would very probably go off and not return to the parts of the country from whence they came or clandestinely would get on board the transports in such a manner as would not be in his power to prevent." "In either case," continued Carleton, "an inevitable loss would ensue to the proprietors."[23] But as the business was then conducted they had at least a chance for compensation.
In conformity with these views, Carleton suggested that commissioners be appointed by the two countries "to agree upon the mode of compensating as well as the amount and other points with respect to which there was no provision made in the treaty." This suggestion was approved by Congress, and in compliance with it Egbert Benson, William Smith, and Daniel Parker were appointed[24] with specific instructions from Washington to "assist representatives of Great Britain in inspecting and superintending the embarkation of persons and property in fulfillment of the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris."[25]
These commissioners began their work immediately by examining the claim of one Phillip Lott to a Negro named Thomas Francis[26] on board a vessel called the Fair American in New York harbor and about to be carried to the island of Jamaica. Concerning this inquiry a pointed remonstrance was made to Sir Guy Carleton. After the details of the examination were presented to him, the commissioners requested Great Britain to prohibit its representatives from carrying away the Negro and to deliver Francis to Lott. Notifying Washington, June 14, 1783, of their progress, the commissioners reminded him that Sir Guy Carleton intimated an impropriety in the claim, as the property was not suggested to be in danger of being sent away. "This left room," said the commissioners, "for an idea that possibly property about to be sent away would be restored ... and we conceive it is now reduced to a certainty that all applications for the delivery of property will be fruitless and we therefore desist from them."[27]
A few days later the commissioners reported to Washington that in superintending an embarkation of fourteen transports bound for Nova Scotia "about 3000 souls, among whom were at least 130 Negroes who appeared to be property of the citizens of the United States," were carried away. They also indicated that these embarkations were made in spite of their presence and remonstrance and for this reason asked General Washington for "further directions on this subject."[28] Other reports of the commissioners to General Washington, June 17, 1783, show that on many other occasions Negroes not residing within the British lines were taken away. To the remonstrances of the commissioners, Sir Guy Carleton gave a deaf ear. They, in the meantime, wrote General Washington that they had interpreted Carleton's silence as a "determination that all future applications should remain equally unnoticed." That they realized that their efforts were fruitless goes without saying, for they confessed that their work was ineffective and that the British vessels were never subjected to any rigid inspections and it was, therefore, impossible to determine, from the register provided by Sir Guy Carleton, the exact number of Negroes carried away in those vessels.[29]
The work of the commissioners, nevertheless, was noteworthy. They called Washington's attention to the fact that Sir Guy Carleton affected to distinguish between the cases of such Negroes as came within the British lines in consequence of the promise of freedom and protection promulgated by Carleton's predecessors and such as came in either previous to the proclamations or subsequent to the cessation of hostilities. "Negroes of the first description," insisted Carleton, "were not included in the treaty." The commissioners soon realized that even this limited construction given to the article was not intended to be fulfilled by Carleton's subordinate officers. They based their contention upon the fact that printed certificates granting Negroes the privilege of embarking[30] were distributed by the commandant of New York City, "as their convenience might require."[31] These certificates fell into the hands of many persons for whom they were not intended. So loosely were they distributed that one was picked up by the commissioners who transmitted the same to General Washington.
On the other hand, the commissioners insisted that the treaty stipulated specifically that his Brittanic Majesty should withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the United States and from every port, place and harbor within the same without causing any destruction or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants.[32] With these two interpretations of the Seventh Article invariably insisted upon by Carleton on the one hand and the commissioners on the other an agreement was less likely to be reached and, in spite of the efforts to the contrary, the deportation of Negroes took place steadily until all the British departed.[33]
In the meantime, Congress was discussing the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. The non-observance of the Seventh Article on the part of Great Britain and the destruction worked by Carleton evoked many resolutions opposing the ratification of the treaty for the expressed reason that it did not provide for the loss of Negroes. One of these resolutions was to the effect that it was "inexpedient to concur in passing laws necessary for carrying into effect the treaty."[34] These efforts of Congress, however, like those of the commissioners were of no avail. Complaints of American citizens of the loss of their property were expressed by the representatives in Congress. They, to be sure, had their effect, for soon thereafter, Congress transferred the question of the return of Negroes to the realm of actual diplomacy.[35]
John Adams, 1788, who, by the way, was one of the representatives of the United States who signed the Treaty of Paris, received an appointment as representative of this country to England to settle the alleged violations of the Treaty of Paris. He was instructed in 1785 to press for a fulfillment of the terms of the treaty of peace on the part of Great Britain.[36] He had little time, however, to press his claim before representatives of Great Britain were inquiring why the United States did not perform her part in this reciprocal contract. To these inquiries, Adams replied that "America could not; that it was hardly a government at all." He, moreover, informed Congress that the reason assigned by Laurens for incorporating the Seventh Article was that the people of the United States would be unable to comply with the part of the treaty which respects debts unless the provision which respects Negroes was made. "This construction," he continued, "was never denied and that it seemed to be understood by the ministry that on a settlement with the United States compensation must be made."
Obviously, then, both Great Britain and America understood that the Seventh Article would be fulfilled by Great Britain only when the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Articles were fulfilled by the United States.[37] This point, however, was discussed pro and con for many months and was seldom admitted by the American diplomatic representatives, Adams himself said that he could "get no comfort from his mission." The construction given the Seventh Article making its fulfillment by Great Britain contingent upon the execution of other provisions only complicated matters.
Another mission was planned in 1789,[38] but before another representative was appointed Washington urged upon Gouverneur Morris, who contemplated visiting London, "to find out the reasons why Great Britain had not complied with the Seventh Article." In a letter written to Morris, October 13, 1789, Washington desired Morris to converse with his Brittanic Majesty's Ministers as to whether there was any objection to performing those articles remaining to be performed on his part. "Learn with precision," he concluded, "what they mean to do on this head." In compliance with this request, on April 7, 1790, Morris interviewed the British representative, the Duke of Leeds, who gave to him only "general assurances" for a faithful observance of the articles and, becoming a "little embarrassed," could not say how the matter in regard to the Negroes stood. After many days of silence, the Duke of Leeds, April 23, 1790, "lamented every circumstance" which delayed the fulfillment of engagements on the part of the United States.[39] He also indicated that, if circumstances rendered their final completion impracticable, he had no scruples in declaring the object of Great Britain would be to "retard the fulfillment of such subsequent parts of the treaty as depend entirely upon Great Britain until redress is granted to their subjects upon the specific points of the treaty itself or a fair and just compensation for the non-performance of those engagements on the part of the United States."[40]
Informing Washington of his progress, May 29, 1790, Morris disclosed the fact that he was no longer contending for the return of the Negroes, for that would involve either "breaking faith" with those whom they had seduced by the offer of freedom or the violation of the stipulation which they had made with the United States in the Treaty of Paris. In presenting America's side, however, he insisted upon compensation in order that it would not be difficult for the planters to show that they had sustained a heavy loss from the want of men to cultivate their lands and thereby produce the means of paying their debts. To this the Duke of Leeds replied that he wished to "consider the treaty subject generally" and thought that some compensation could be mutually made. He declared, nevertheless, that he would rather "make a new treaty than perform the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris."[41]
Subsequent diplomatic negotiations between Jefferson and Hammond, the Minister of Great Britain, indicate that Washington was not satisfied with the status of the case after Jefferson cited specific infractions of the Seventh Article of the treaty, enclosing documents supporting these claims. Hammond informed the United States, November 30, 1791, that the King had suspended the execution of the Seventh Article in consequence of the non-compliance on the part of the United States of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Articles. In short, he insisted that the stipulations should be performed in the order in which they stood. He stated, moreover, that the "two objects were so mutually connected with each other as not to admit of separation either in the mode of discussing them or in any subsequent engagements which might result from that discussion."[42]
It was soon evident then that such extended discussions were fruitless. This state of affairs, to be sure, could not exist very much longer. Citizens of the United States were pressing "more zealously" for the return of the Negroes. For almost a decade the subject had been discussed without an amicable adjustment. In a communication to the Congress, April 16, 1794, Washington showed that he had grasped the situation by informing that body of the fact that "despatches received from our minister in London contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain." He suggested, therefore, to the Senate that an envoy extraordinary be sent to England. To this end Washington appointed John Jay to settle the infractions of the Treaty of Paris.[43]
In Jay's instructions nothing was specifically said concerning the carrying away of the Negroes by the British, but, as it appeared from subsequent transactions, it is quite certain that the infractions of the Seventh Article as well as those of other articles were to be adjusted. In this wise, the "irrepressible question"—relating to the return of Negroes carried away by Great Britain during the Revolutionary War became one of the purposes of Jay's mission.[44]
During the negotiation with Grenville there took place many heated debates, in which each party accused the other of the first aggression. Meanwhile Jay ascertained, September 13, 1794, that Grenville supported the contention held by his predecessors, that the article of the treaty was intended to prevent depredations at the departure of the army; that no alteration in the actual state of property was intended by the Seventh Article; that every Negro who strayed or escaped from the American lines and came into the lines of the British Army became by the laws of war British property; and that to extend the Seventh Article of the treaty to include Negroes who came within the British lines under the proclamation of freedom was to give it a "wider latitude than the terms of it would warrant."[45] In short, Grenville contended that in regard to those within the British lines before the signing of the treaty they were "left entirely without restrictions."[46]
In reply to Grenville's argument Jay divided the subject of the Negroes into three groups: first, the Negroes captured or disposed of during the course of the war; second, the Negroes who remained with and belonged to American citizens within the British lines; and third, the Negroes who, confiding in the promise of freedom, fled from their masters and took refuge with the British. Concerning the first two groups, no extended discussion followed. Grenville stated, however, in regard to the second group, that he was "not so sure." The last-named group on the other hand, produced much pourparler, for Jay maintained that these Negroes were "clearly comprehended by the terms of the treaty." According to his argument, Negroes could not by "mere flight" alter their slave character. He soon appreciated the difficult position of England in trying to keep the pledges of freedom offered to the Negroes and at the same time fulfill, according to the American interpretation, the article of the treaty in regard to the return of Negroes.
During the negotiation Jay admitted, moreover, that the carrying away of Negroes was justifiable in view of the promises of freedom and protection promulgated by British military representatives.[47] He concluded, however, with the thought that "Great Britain ought not to expect to escape the consequence of the folly of her Generals in America." For this reason he restated the idea expressed by other American representatives to Great Britain, that compensation should be obtained for the Negroes carried away. In spite of Jay's change of position Grenville persisted with unyielding opposition in the view that such slaves were no longer American property. "On this point" wrote Jay to Randolph, "we could not agree."
Concerning this question, Jay said, moreover,[48] that "various articles have been under consideration but did not meet with mutual approbation and consent." Sensing the situation Randolph declared to Jay, December 3, that he was extremely afraid that the reasoning of Grenville about the Negroes would not be satisfactory. "Indeed I own," said Randolph, "that I can not myself yield to its force." Randolph knew of the anti-British sentiment in the South and realized that the treaty would be opposed by the South because that section would feel that it had been neglected,[49] should it receive no compensation for the Negroes carried away by the British.
In a communication to Jay two weeks later it is obvious that there was no concerted opinion even in America in regard to the much mooted question. Jay and Randolph, for instance, differed as to whether the slaves concerned ever became the property of Great Britain. Jay held that the Negroes in question never became the property of Great Britain whereas, Randolph held that while property is acquired in movables as soon as they come within the power of the enemy, yet "property rights thus acquired in war may by the treaty of peace be removed."[50]
To the contention of Great Britain that the Seventh Article meant merely an engagement against further depredations, Randolph declared the stipulation "superfluous"; for he maintained that the mere cessation of war meant that much. To this point, Grenville declared the treaty "odious," if the stipulation were interpreted to include Negroes who sought British lines under the promise of freedom and protection "on the basis of common morality." Great Britain was not to be expected to execute a stipulation with such an interpretation. Obviously, then, Great Britain would not recede from her position. Citizens of America, especially those deprived of their property, were beginning to think that our diplomatic relations were not properly taken care of by Jay. Expressions of disapproval of the treaty by resolutions in the Senate evinced the temper of the people. Jay, in the meantime was called "traitor"; his mission was declared a failure and the treaty was attacked from many sides.
At this juncture special mention must be made of the objections of the southerners on the ground that the treaty did not provide for the return of their property, while the objection of the North was not so pressing. In fact, northerners acquiesced in the opinion of Hamilton who had substantially the same view that Grenville had.[51] Thus we see the first glimpse of the North becoming estranged from the South because of the difference of opinion in regard to the Negro.
The leading source of dissatisfaction of the treaty of Jay seemed to be a failure to get compensation for the Negroes carried away by Great Britain. The stipulation, moreover, was not definite, for many constructions could be placed upon it. The words of the treaty, moreover, were too vague and uncertain to express accurately the intention of the signers. Whether Negroes whom the British carried away could any longer be considered American property, seemed to be the crux of the situation. Although no definite settlement could be reached by the two nations, authorities of international law[52] give the case to Great Britain. One rule which was recognized by the foremost nations of the world was to the effect that a slave escaping in war becomes free. Concerning this Halleck says that such slaves cannot be regained by their former masters.[53] Woolsey says that "a slave sojourning to a free land cannot be treated as his master's property—as destitute of jural capacity." To the same purport, Heffter says "in no case is a state bound to allow the slavery which subsists in others." Dana, in his edition of Wheaton's International Law supports this contention.[54]
Dissatisfied with results but not discouraged, however, Washington appointed commissioners, December 7th, 1798, to work with commissioners from Great Britain and proceed with the infractions of the treaty. A short time thereafter President Adams in an address to Congress, November 23, 1797, reported that several decisions on the claims of citizens of the United States for losses and damages sustained by reason of irregular and illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels or other property had been made by the commissioners in London, conformably to the Seventh Article of the Treaty. "The sums awarded by the Commissioners," said he, "have been paid by the British Government; a considerable number of other claims where costs and damages and not captured property were the only objects in question have been decided by arbitration, and the sums awarded to the citizens of the United States have also been paid."[55] These decisions served to allay the discontent in America. Still later, Adams informed Congress that "such progress had been made in the examination and decision of cases ... which were the subject of the Seventh Article that it is supposed the Commissioners will be able to bring their business to a conclusion in August of the ensuing year."[56]
No account of the final settlement of these claims, however, is found in the sources. Dissatisfaction became more intense. Claimants were pressing on all sides for a fair compensation for the loss of their property. So serious was the situation that the House of Representatives went beyond its accustomed limitation and discussed in 1798 the treaty-making power of the United States. Pressure had been brought to bear upon the representatives of the people because the Jay Treaty had been ratified by the President and Senate and it did not contain a provision covering the return of the Negroes.
Further efforts, nevertheless, were made to adjust the differences between the two countries. They, however, were of little avail. The Republican policy of Jefferson which this country strictly followed from 1801 to 1809 had as its basic principle that governments ought to do as little as possible. Hence our army and navy were cut down to the extent that the American Government could not assert itself against foreign encroachment. Particularly in 1804 our relations with Great Britain became worse when the Jay Treaty of 1794 by agreement was allowed to expire. To compel Great Britain to come to terms Congress enacted a non-important act which never had the desired effect.
Soon thereafter the continental system and the paper blockade engaged the attention of the American Government. Negotiations had failed. Great Britain would not make a treaty. The accumulation of injuries called for action of some kind. To yield and say nothing meant to give up the rights of an independent nation. For this reason Jefferson introduced in 1807 the Embargo with which he hoped to force France as well as Great Britain to come to terms—to recognize the United States as a "free sovereign and independent nation." Meanwhile a spirit of nationality was developing in the country. Soon thereafter war was declared and waged against Great Britain to win the respect and honor which every nation deserves.
In this state of war the provisions of the Treaty of Paris and the Jay Treaty were nullified. In response to an inquiry as to whether these treaties, so far as they were not fully executed, terminated by the War of 1812, the British Department of State in a communication replied that "with respect to the treaties you are informed that they were claimed by Great Britain at the conclusion of the Treaty of Ghent to have terminated by the War of 1812."
Against this view the United States protested. In the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. the Town of New Haven, the view was expressed that provisions of a treaty remain in full force in spite of war.[57] The general rule of inter-national law, however, is that war terminates all subsisting treaties between the belligerent powers.[58] The United States, moreover, soon acquiesced in this view, for President Polk in his message to Congress, December 7, 1847, said, "a state of war abrogates treaties previously existing between the belligerents."[59] Great Britain then was legally excused by the best authorities of the world from executing fully the provisions of the Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794.
As a result, the same policy in regard to the carrying away of Negroes was followed during the War of 1812.[60] While the British forces were occupying the forts and harbors of the United States, Negroes came within their possession. Many were induced to run away while others were captured in battles. From the Dauphin Islands-possessions claimed to be without the limits of the newly acquired Louisiana territory the British carried away slaves. In fact, from whatever places the British occupied they carried away Negroes. Many Negroes came also into the possession of the British by the proclamation of Admiral Cochrane of Great Britain, April 2, 1814, setting such loyal adherents free. In effect, this proclamation extended an invitation to all persons desiring to change their slave status. Although the proclamation[61] did not specify the Negroes, the meaning and object of Admiral Cochrane was evidently to bring Negroes within the British lines. Many, to be sure, responded to the proclamation. As many more, no doubt, were carried away from the United States by the British under the veil that they were captives in the war and, therefore, no longer the property of American inhabitants.
With victory assured and the representatives of Great Britain and America assembled in Ghent, July 11, 1814, one of the first questions for the commissioners to consider was evidently the return of the Negroes. This question had primary consideration in the final draft of the Treaty of Ghent. By the first article of the treaty it was provided that "all possessions whatsoever taken by either party during the war or which might have been taken after the signing of this treaty shall be restored without delay and that these possessions should not be destroyed." It specified, moreover, that artillery, public and private property, originally captured in the forts of the United States should not be carried away.[62]
Negroes were carried away by the British forces after the treaty was signed as well as before. In Georgia many Negroes came into possession of the British at Cumberland Island fortified by Admiral Cockburn.[63] In a letter dated November 22, 1914, Joseph Cabell gave evidence to support the above-mentioned facts when he declared that he was on board a British squadron in Lynnhaven Bay at the time Major Thomas of York attempted to recover his Negroes, who had gone off to the British and that the destination of the Negroes on board the ships was a subject of curiosity and concern. Soon, however, he learned that they were to be sold in the Bahamas.[64] From another reliable source comes the information that a shameful traffic had been carried on in the West Indies.[65] Secretary Monroe presented to the Senate, moreover, an affidavit of a Captain Williams who had been a prisoner in the Bahamas for some time. In this he declared that he had been present at the sale of Negroes taken from the vicinity of Norfolk and Hampton. "This affidavit," said Monroe, "was voluntarily given and the facts have been corroborated by a variety of circumstances."
Such information was given in the Senate. In discussing the ratification of the treaty the Senate suggested that commissioners be appointed to carry into effect the first article. In line with this view John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin were authorized to supervise the execution of this article. In a communication to Secretary Monroe, Feb. 23, 1815, the commissioners reported that "all slaves and other private property are claimed to be delivered up."[66]
So much progress in so short a time was remarkable. To adjust all the claims in an amicable way would hardly occur. It was soon learned by the commissioners that "all slaves and other private property" were delivered up by the British using as their guide a different construction of Article I. "The construction," Monroe said, "ignored the distinction which existed between public and private property." Had it been intended he continued, "to put slaves and other private property on the same ground with artillery and other public property the terms "originally captured in the said forts or places which shall remain therein on the exchange of the ratification of the Treaty" would have followed at the end of the sentence after "slaves and other private property."[67] With their construction, he contended that both interests, the public and private would have been subject to the same limitation. Besides, Monroe held that the restrictive words immediately following "artillery and other public property" was not intended to include the words "slaves and other private property." If "the slaves and other private property" are placed on the same footing with artillery and other public property, "the consequences must be that all will be carried away."
Monroe learned, furthermore, that Mr. Baker, Charge D'affaires of Great Britain, had placed another construction on Article I of the treaty. In this new construction he had made a distinction between slaves who were in British ships of war in American waters and those in the ports held by British forces at the time of the exchange of ratifications.[68] Monroe and the commissioners, on the other hand, were of the opinion that the United States was entitled to all slaves in possession of the British forces within the limits of the United States forts or British ships of war. Concerning this opinion Baker wrote April 3, 1815, that it could not be shown that Monroe's construction was sanctioned by the words of the Article. "If this construction had been known then," he remarked, "we would have decidedly objected to it and proposed others."[69]
Accessible reports indicate that the governments of Great Britain and the United States persisted in the constructions given by their respective representatives. Clavelle, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in the Chesapeake, claimed that the treaty meant only such slaves or other private property should be delivered up as were "originally captured in the forts or places to be restored." In conformity with their construction of the Article, Clavelle refused furthermore to restore the slaves taken from Tangier Islands, because they were not originally captured there. The United States, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the country was entitled to all slaves within its limits on the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty. The United States believed, finally, that the carrying away of Negroes applied to both kinds of property because the word was common to both descriptions.
By the usage of civilized nations in cases of invasion private property with the exception of maritime captures was respected. This meant, in effect, that none could be lawfully taken away. Influenced by this usage Great Britain receded from her position and declared that the claim of the United States to indemnification for her slaves—had never been resisted. In the meantime Great Britain declared April 10, 1816, that she could not consider any property which had been previous to ratification of the treaty removed on shipboard as "property forming a subject for a claim of restoration or indemnification." In spirit, these two declarations were contradictory. Besides they made the subject more difficult and puzzling.
In the meanwhile the work of the commissioners continued. In their efforts to take an inventory of the slaves so that the claims might be adjusted, they encountered the opposition of Clavelle and Cockburn. It was clearly evident that the efforts of the commissioners would be of no avail. More coercive means were necessary to settle such an extended and controversial question. In a convention of commerce between Great Britain and the United States October 20, 1818, representatives realized that an agreement in regard to the Negroes was hardly possible. The representatives from the United States, therefore, offered to refer the differences to some friendly sovereign or State to be named for that purpose. They agreed further to consider the decision of such a friendly sovereign or State to be "final and conclusive."[70]
Very soon thereafter the Emperor of Russia offered to use his good offices as mediator and after a short discussion, his proposal was accepted. To this end there was concluded on June 30, 1822, a convention in which the adjustment of the claims for indemnity was left to a mixed commission. This action was followed by desultory and extended discussions which terminated, nevertheless, in the final disposition of the controversy. The point of difference was decided in favor of the United States. In handing down his decision the Emperor held that the limitations as to the restitution of public property bore no relation to private property. In effect, he said that the treaty prohibited the carrying away of any private property whatever from the places and territories stipulated in Article I of the Treaty of Ghent. He contended that "the United States was entitled to consider as having been carried away all slaves who had been transported from those territories on board of English vessels within the waters of American territories and who for that reason had not been restored."[71]
In compliance with the decision of the Emperor of Russia a mixed commission, one commissioner and one arbitrator from Great Britain as well as the United States met July 30, 1822, at Washington, D.C., under the Emperor's mediation.[72] For the United States Langdon Cheves was the commissioner and Henry Sewell the arbitrator; for Great Britain George Jackson was the commissioner and John McTavish the arbitrator. George Hay was appointed, also, by the President of the United States to give such information and support that might be needed since individual claimants could not be present. The purpose of the commission was to prove the average value of the Negroes at the time of the ratification of the treaty and to determine the validity of individual claims. In the event no agreement could be reached recourse was had to the Emperor of Russia whose decision would be "final and conclusive." This action was insisted upon by America, whereas Great Britain persisted in refusing to submit such matters to the Emperor. Their progress, as a result, was not very marked. In considering the "definitive lists"[73] of claims these commissioners encountered many more doubtful and intricate problems. Claims not contained in this list were not to be taken cognizance of; nor was the British government required to make compensation for them. With respect to compensation, Great Britain promised to produce all evidence which was in the possession of her naval and military officers concerning the number of slaves carried away. It was provided by the commission that no payment was to be made within twelve months. September 11, 1822, the board unanimously agreed on the average value of slaves as follows:
| Each slave from Louisiana | $580 |
| Each slave from Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama | 390 |
| Each slave from Maryland, Virginia and other States | 280 |
The next difficulty of the board occurred in regard to the allowance of interest on claims. Concerning this point, Cheves held that a reasonable compensation for the injury sustained should have been granted. "A just compensation," said Cheves, "is the reestablishment of the thing taken away with an equivalent for the use of it during the period of detention." In reply to this Jackson held that the convention of 1822 did not grant the commissioners the power to fix interests and, besides, that interests not being a part of the debt could not be allowed. Realizing the futility of his claims Cheves offered to submit the difference to arbitration, but Jackson declined.
Equally difficult questions arose in regard to the slaves taken away from Dauphin Island in Mobile Bay.[74] This island, controlled by the British during the war, was later surrendered to the United States. Concerning this Jackson held that it was not legally at the time of the ratifications of the treaty a part of the United States, that is, it was not a part of Louisiana but belonged to West Florida, which was not ceded to the United States until 1819.[75] In regard to this Cheves offered to refer these claims to arbitration, but in this view Jackson refused to acquiesce. The situation did not become any better even when Rufus King was sent as our minister to England to succeed Henry Clay who became John Quincy Adams's Secretary of State.
Continued disagreement of the representatives of Great Britain and the United States resulted. Their failure to agree upon the provisions of the Convention of 1822—that matters under dispute be referred to arbitration made the work of this convention of little avail. Clay's offer of settlement was not favorably received in Great Britain. As to a basis of compromise, Clay said that the "total number of slaves on the definitive list was 3,601; that the entire value of all the property for which the indemnity was claimed including interest might be stated at $2,693,120." Realizing that this large sum would never be secured, Clay suggested that $1,151,800 might be used as the minimum in the negotiation. He used as a guide the fact that Parliament had appropriated 250,000 pounds to cover the awards of the commission. This sum, Mr. King observed also, was nearly the sum mentioned as a minimum by Clay in his instructions to him. Even with this information, the commissioners made little progress.
On the other hand, Mr. Vaughan, the British Envoy at Washington, said April 12, 1826, "that His Majesty's Government regretted to find themselves under the absolute impossibility of accepting the terms of compromise offered by the envoy from the United States in London." He did not admit, moreover, that the question of interest should be referred to arbitration, but maintained that the demand was unwarranted by the convention and unfounded by the Law Officers of the Crown.[76] In reply to his observation, Clay informed Vaughan of the fact that Great Britain's representatives had refused to refer many questions to arbitration and that if this refusal to cooperate in this regard should be upheld it would virtually be making him the final judge of every question of difference that arose in the joint commission.[77] This disagreement continued until 1825, when the commissioners met to collect and weigh evidence.
Soon thereafter, Albert Gallatin, who had been appointed Envoy of the United States to London, was authorized to treat with Canning on the oft-discussed question. During the first interview he discovered that, while there was a great reluctance to recede from the ground already taken by Jackson, there was also a disposition to settle that controversy.[78] Following the instructions given to King, Gallatin used the 250,000 pounds as the basis of settlement. This sum he was authorized to accept. He, however, did not make this offer known immediately but waited for the formal offer of $1,200,000 from the British Government; and in conformity with his instruction of a later date, Gallatin offered as an ultimatum an acceptance of $1,204,960, which the British Government reluctantly agreed to pay.[79]
On November 13, 1826, a convention to carry out this agreement was concluded. The amount specified above was to cover all claims under the award of the Emperor of Russia. It provided, moreover, that the money was to be paid in Washington, in the current money of the United States, in two installments; the first twenty days after the British Minister in the United States should have been officially notified of the ratifications of the convention, and the second August 1, 1827. In this way the convention of 1822 was annulled, save as to the two articles relating to the average value of slaves which had been carried into effect, and as to the third article as related to the definitive list which had also been carried out.[80] This ended the work of the board. After ratification had been exchanged the board adjourned, March 26, 1827.
This left one more matter to be disposed of, that of executing the provisions of the commission of 1826. In compliance with this Congress passed an act, March 2, 1827, to carry out this agreement.[81] A convention was thereby called to meet in Washington July 10th and proceed with the consideration of claims, "allowing such further time for the production of evidence as they should think just." As soon as the claims were validated and the principal amounts ascertained seventy-five per cent of the principal was paid with the explanation that when all claims were settled, the other twenty-five per cent would be paid, if the fund permitted it. If it did not, then the remainder would be distributed in proportion to the sums awarded. In these negotiations, Langdon Cheves and Henry Sewell, who had only recently represented the United States in London, together with James Pleasants of Virginia, were appointed commissioners. They considered not only the claims on the definitive list but also those deposited in the Department of State and which had not been previously adjusted.
The conflicting interests of payments and the inconclusive evidence which were presented made the work of this convention more difficult. The records were very poor and contained little of the information desired. For this reason many claims were denied; especially was this true in Maryland and Virginia.[82] Many of the claimants of other States nevertheless were compensated. Seventy-five per cent was granted them, the sum totalling $600,000 being paid. This condition of affairs caused a clash among the 1,100 claimants, 700 of whose petitions on the definitive list were examined. Many other claimants were seeking evidence to secure compensation. They were not successful, however, for Cheves opposed the admission of hearsay testimony as well as the testimony of slaves. Well informed as to the progress of the commission, Congress passed an act May 15, 1828,[83] specifying August 31st as the last day on which the commission would meet. Of that entire amount awarded $1,197,422.18 had been paid to the claimants. The remaining sum was "distributed and paid ratably," to all the claimants to whom compensation had been made. The work of the Convention of 1827 thus ended.
Arnett G. Lindsay
FOOTNOTES:
[1] This dissertation is the result of the researches of Mr. A. G. Lindsay under Dr. C. G. Woodson at Howard University during the academic year 1919-1920 and was submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in candidacy for the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. C. G. Woodson was the chairman of this committee.
The following sources were used in the preparation of this manuscript: American State Papers, Foreign Relations; American State Papers, Confidential Documents; American State Papers, Wait's Edition; Annals of Congress; Diary of John Quincy Adams, in his Memoirs; Diplomatic Correspondence; Force, American Archives; Journals of Congress; Journals of Continental Congress; McDonald's Source Book of American History; Niles Register; Treaties and Conventions, Edition 1889; United States Statutes at Large.
The following works were also consulted: John Adams, Works; Van Tyne, The American Revolution; American Historical Association Reports; Babcock, Rise of American Nationality; Benton, Naval History of England; Channing, History of the United States; Ford, Washington's Writings; Ford, Jefferson's Writings; Fiske, Critical Period; Gibb, Administrations of Washington and Adams; The Journal of Negro History; Morse, John Adams; Naval Chronicle of England; Ramsay, History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809; Sparks, Washington; Moore, International Arbitration; Moore, Digest of International Law; Wharton, Digest of International Law, Edition, 1887; Halleck, Elements of Law; Wheaton, Elements of Law, Edition, by Dana.
[2] Ramsay, History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809, Vol. I, pp. 474-475.
[3] American Historical Association, Vol. I, p. 273. F. A. Ogg, American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 304.
[4] Moore, International Arbitrations, p. 350.
[5] Van Tyne, American Revolution, p. 61; Force, American Archives, 4th Series, III, 1385.
[6] Proclamation—"Whereas the enemy have adopted a practice of enrolling Negroes among their troops, I do hereby give Notice that all Negroes taken in Arms or upon any military Duty shall be purchased for the public service at a stated price; the money to be paid to the captors. But I do most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim right over any Negroes the property of a Rebel who may take refuge with any part of this Army. And I do promise to every Negro who shall desert the Rebel Standard full Security to follow within the Lines any occupation which he may think proper." Given under my Hand at Headquarters, Phillipsburg, the 30th day of June, 1799.
H. Clinton.
By his Excellency's Commander
John Smith, Sec.
Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26; Van Tyne, American Revolution.
[7] Force, American Archives, I, 486, Fifth Series.
[8] Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26.
[9] Ramsay, History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809, I, 474.
[10] Moore's Historical Notes, 14; Journal of Negro History, Vol. I, p. 117.
[11] Jefferson's Works, Vol. II, p. 426.
[12] Sparks, Washington's Works, III, 218.
[13] Channing's History of the United States, Vol. III, pp. 348-369.
[14] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, p. 273.
[15] Article 7, Treaty of Paris.—"There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, and from every port, place and harbour within the same; leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds and papers belonging to any of the said states or their citizens which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong."
McDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History, p. 208.
[16] American Historical Association Report, 1874, p. 421. Waits, American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 279.
[17] Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, pp. 411-422.
[18] Sparks, Washington, Vol. VIII, Appendix, p. 544.
[19] Washington to Daniel Parker in Ford's Washington's Writing, X, 246-247.
[20] Ford's Edition of Jefferson's Writings, p. 127.
[21] Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, p. 417.
[22] Ford, Washington's Writings, X, 241-243.
[23] Journal of Negro History, II, 418.
[24] Diplomatic Correspondence, Vol. XI, p. 335.
[25] Ford, Washington's Writings, X, 241-243.
[26] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, I, p. 190.
[27] Ibid., I, p. 191.
[28] Ibid., I, pp. 188-192.
[29] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 188-192.
[30] Blank certificate—New York, April 23, 1783.
This is to certify to whomsoever it may concern that the bearer hereof ........... a Negro restored to the British Lines in consequence of the proclamation of Sir William Howe and Sir Henry Clinton, late Commanders-in-chief in America; and that the said Negro has hereby his excellency's Sir Guy Carleton's permission to go to Nova Scotia or wherever else .......... may think proper.
By order of
Brigadier Gen. Buck.
E. Williams,
Major of Brigade.
[31] American State Papers, Vol. I, pp. 190-192.
[32] McDonald's Source Book of American History, p. 208.
[33] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, p. 276.
[34] Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, p. 970.
[35] Report of the American Historical Association, pp. 413-444; Diplomatic Correspondence 1783-1789 (3 Vol. ed.), II, 340.
[36] Morse, John Adams, p. 235.
[37] Adams' Works, Vol. VIII, p. 303.
[38] American Historical Association Report, 1894, p. 422. McLaughlin. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, p. 122.
[39] American Historical Association Report, 1894, p. 422.
[40] American State Papers, Confidential Documents, Vol. X, p. 80.
[41] American State Papers, Confidential Documents, Vol. X, p. 85.
[42] McLaughlin, Western Posts and British Debts, p. 423 in American Historical Association Report, 1894.
[43] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 470-472.
[44] Jay to Randolph, American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 485.
[45] American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 485.
[46] Ibid., p. 486.
[47] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, pp. 273-298.
[48] American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 501.
[49] Ibid., p. 509.
[50] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, pp. 273-298.
[51] Annals of Congress—4th Session, 1795-96, p. 1006.
[52] Halleck, Elements of Law, p. 358.
[53] Ibid., p. 359.
[54] Wheaton's Edition by Dana, page 441.
[55] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. II, p. 46.
[56] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. II, p. 48.
[57] Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. V, page 372.
[58] Ibid., page 375.
[59] Ibid., pp. 375-376.
[60] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. IV., p. 106.
[61] This proclamation was:
"Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view of entering his Majesty's service, or of being received as Free Settlers in some of his Majesty's colonies
"This is therefore to give notice
"That all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the United States will with their families be received on board his Majesty's ships or vessels of war or at the military ports that may be established upon or near the coast of the U.S. where they will have their choice of either entering his Majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as Free Settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies where they will meet all due encouragement.
"Given under my hand at Bermuda this 2nd day of April, 1814.
"By Command of Vice Admiral William Balhetchet
"Alex. Cochrane."
Niles Register, Vol. VI, p. 242.
[62] Article I, Treaty of Ghent:
"There shall be a firm and universal peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this treaty shall have been ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever taken by either party from the other during the war or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public nature, or belonging to private persons which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of the officers of either party, shall be as far as may be practicable forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands on the Bay of Passama-Quoddy as are claimed by both parties shall remain in the possession of the party in whose occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting the title to the said islands shall have been made in conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the islands and territories claimed by both parties, shall in any manner whatever be construed to effect the right of either...."
[63] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. III, p. 750.
[64] Ibid., Vol. III, page 751.
[65] Moore's International Arbitration, page 350.
[66] Naval Chronicle, Vol. XXIV, page 213.
[67] Moore's International Arbitration, p. 352.
[68] American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 105.
[69] Ibid., p. 108.
[70] American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 126.
[71] Moore's International Arbitration, p. 363.
[72] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. V, p. 214.
[73] Maryland, 714; Va., 1721; S.C., 10; Ga., 833; La., 259; Miss., 22; Del., 2; Ala., 18; D. C., 3—page 801, Vol. V, American State Papers.
[74] Moore, International Arbitration, p. 377.
[75] Ibid., p. 377.
[76] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume VI, page 344; 746.
[77] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 746.
[78] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, p. 348.
[79] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 352.
[80] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 372.
[81] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 339
[82] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, page 855.
[83] Four Statutes at Large, page 269.
THE NEGRO IN POLITICS[1]
A treatise on the Negro in politics since the emancipation of the race may be divided into three periods; that of the Reconstruction, when the Negroes in connection with the interlopers and sympathetic whites controlled the Southern States, the one of repression following the restoration of the radical whites to power, and the new day when the Negro counts as a figure in politics as a result of his worth in the community and his ability to render the parties and the government valuable service.
While the echoes of the Civil War were dying away, the South attempted to reduce the Negro to a position of peonage by the passage of the black codes. Many northern men led by Sumner and Stevens, who at first tried to secure the cooperation of the best whites, became indignant because of this attitude of the South and were reduced to the necessity of forcing Negro suffrage upon the South at the point of the bayonet, believing that the only way to insure the future welfare of the Negro was to safeguard it by giving him the ballot. Under the protection of these military governments, the Negroes and certain more or less fortunate whites gained political control. The southern white men, weary and disgusted because of the outcome of their attempts at secession, maintained an attitude of sullenness and indifference toward the new regime and accordingly offered at first very little opposition to the Negro control of politics. The Negroes, upon their securing the right of suffrage, however, turned at once to their former masters for political leadership,[2] but the majority of these southern gentlemen refused to "lower their dignity" by political association with the Negroes. The few southern gentlemen who did affiliate with the Negroes were dubbed "scalawags" by their former friends and cast out of southern society.
The Negroes were then forced, because of the lack of cooperation on the part of the southern whites, to accept the leadership of certain northern men who came South for the sole purpose of personal gain and exploitation. These men were in some cases of an extremely low order and were in a large measure responsible for the corruption of Reconstruction days. They were contemptuously called "carpetbaggers" by the southern whites because they were so poor that they could carry all of their possessions in a carpet bag. Some of these white men were conscientious, however, and served these States honorably. Most Negroes, therefore, were under the leadership of these three elements: southern men who were regarded by their neighbors as men of the lowest possible order, unscrupulous adventurers from the North, and some intelligent members of their own race like B. K. Bruce, John R. Lynch, R. B. Elliot, and John M. Langston. This ill-assorted group of politicians reconstructed the Southern States.
The wisdom of this policy has been widely questioned. From the point of view of most white men studying Reconstruction history this effort to make the Negro a factor in politics was a failure, the elimination of the Negro from politics was just, and the rise of the Negro to political power even today is viewed with alarm. The opinions of the biased historians in this field will be interesting. Several writers refer to the Negro carpet bag movement as an effort to found commonwealths upon the votes of an ignorant Negro electorate, as working an injustice both to the whites and the blacks in that it made the South solidly democratic.[3] J. G. de R. Hamilton, exaggerating the actual basis of Reconstruction in the southern commonwealths, which were never fully controlled by the Negroes, speaks of the work as having left as a legacy "a protest against anything that might threaten a repetition of the past, when selfish politicians, backed up by the Federal Government, for party purposes, attempted to Africanize the State and deprive the people through misrule and oppression of most that life held dear."[4] John W. Burgess calls the effort an "extravagant humanitarianism which had developed in the minds of the Reconstruction leaders to the point of justifying, not only the political equality of the races but the political superiority at least in loyalty to the Union, the constitution and republican government, of the uncivilized Negroes of the South."[5] Burgess sees justice in subjecting the inferior to the superior class but none in subjecting the superior to the inferior.
Of these radical utterances historians need take but little notice. They are of value here for the reason that they show the lack of scientific Reconstruction history. No intelligent man who lived through this stormy period or who has read documents bearing on its history will contend that these commonwealths were Africanized merely because the Negroes along with the formerly disfranchised and ignorant poor whites were given the right of suffrage. It will be difficult to prove that the majority of poor whites in the South were at this time sufficiently intelligent and experienced in statecraft to give those commonwealths a much better government than that administered by the Negroes and "Carpet baggers"; for the South had been ruled by few aristocratic families, most of whom because of participation in the Civil War, could not on the cessation of hostilities be given the reins of government. A few who had not had any such connection with the Confederacy haughtily refused to cooperate with the Negroes in the reconstruction of these governments, although they were persistently invited by the Negroes who were thus advised by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, who showed foresight in trying to secure the cooperation of the best white element in the South.[6] These statesmen, however, are generally slandered by uninformed writers who contend that Sumner and Stevens did not thus proceed. The Negroes not only sought the leadership of the whites but showed unusual humaneness toward their poverty-stricken former masters by passing, as they did in South Carolina, stay laws to postpone the payment of their many war debts secured by mortgages on their property.
Statistics show, moreover, that with the exception of South Carolina and Mississippi, no State and not even any department of a State government was ever dominated altogether by Negroes. The Negroes never wanted and never had complete control in the Southern States.[7] The most important offices were generally held by white men. Only two Negroes ever served in the United States Senate, Hiram R. Revells and B. K. Bruce; and only twenty ever became Representatives in the House: and all of these did not serve at the same time, although some of them were elected for more than one term.
The charge that the men who were elected to office by the Negroes were always of the most debased and degenerate type is untrue. Because of the refusal of the southern aristocracy to cooperate with them, however, the Negroes were forced to elect such men as they were able to secure. Numerous promising and respectable whites who were elected to office by the Negroes, became corrupt and unprincipled on account of the treatment tendered them by the aristocratic whites. From among the Negroes themselves, the very best men available were chosen to hold offices. Among these were former slaves who had been made trustworthy servants of their masters and free Negroes who had received some education. Some of these Negroes served in their official capacity with honor and credit. A number of them were also respected by certain fairminded southern whites.[8]
Numerous examples of the high regard which the whites of certain communities had for the Negro leaders can be cited. Samuel J. Lee, of Charleston, South Carolina, was considered by his white contemporaries as one of the best criminal lawyers which the State had produced. At his death all local courts were declared adjourned and the entire city paid him homage. The late Bishop Isaac Clinton served, as Treasurer of Orangeburg, South Carolina, for eight years. Like Mr. Lee, he was held in high esteem by his white neighbors and upon the occasion of his funeral, the business of the community was suspended as a mark of respect to his memory. In certain communities, as in South Carolina, some Negroes were retained as office holders for a number of years after the supremacy of the Democratic party was assured. In Georgetown, South Carolina, Mr. George Harriot was Superintendent of Education for the county for years under the Democratic party. Beaufort, South Carolina, retained Negroes as sheriffs and school officials until a few years ago.[9]
J. T. White, Commissioner of Public Works and Internal Improvements in the State of Arkansas; M. W. Gibbs, Municipal judge in Little Rock, and J. C. Corbin, State Superintendent of Schools in the same State, had records equally as creditable. The same may be said of F. L. Cardoza, State Treasurer of South Carolina, Richard T. Greener, a professor in the University of that commonwealth, Oscar Dunn, Lieutenant-Governor of Louisiana and P.B.S. Pinchback, Acting Governor of that State.[10] The record of Dubuclet, according to Dr. Woodson, should receive special mention. In contradistinction to the rule of stealing from the public treasury, this man who served as Treasurer of the State of Louisiana even after the other departments of the government had been taken from the Negroes, in as much as the term of service of the Treasurer was six years rather than four, was investigated with a view to finding out some act of misuse of the public funds that he might be impeached and thrown out of office. The committee, of which E.D. White, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was chairman, reported after much deliberation that Dubuclet's funds had been honestly handled and that there were no grounds on which proceedings against him could be instituted.[11]
Despite the above mentioned instances of commendable Negro officials, however, the majority of the Negro functionaries were incompetent and as a result these governments could but collapse. The charge of corruption laid at the door of the Negro carpetbagger governments is to a large extent true. The corruption resulted largely from the work of the interlopers from the North and the "scalawags," using the Negroes to reach their own personal ends. In some of this corruption, however, the Negro was an apt scholar and freely participated. The Negroes were not as a whole prepared for the political privileges which were vouchsafed to them and they were to a large extent under the wrong sort of leadership. It is equally true, however, that governments were corrupt throughout the United States at this period. The Reconstruction period was one of corruption and if the Negro governments were of a lower order than a few others, they were not far out of accord with the times. The white people, who assumed control of the government on overthrowing the Reconstruction regime, instituted in several States a rule of corruption surpassing even that of their predecessors. Coming back into office like hungry persons who had been exposed to the cold atmosphere of an exile, the radical whites filled their purses from the coffers of the public treasury and defaulted to the amount of thousands of dollars which the tax payers have had to replace in the years thereafter.[12] The disgraces of Reconstruction, therefore, have been exaggeratingly flaunted by the South for the same purpose that it proclaims the widespread false charge of rape of the present day to justify the persecution of the Negro for being "unusually criminal."
The Negro was finally driven from southern politics through violence and fraud. The chief agent of the southern whites in accomplishing this was a secret organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. This organized mob killed off or drove the leading "Carpetbaggers" out of the South and intimidated the Negroes into submission by perpetrating numerous outrages upon them. After the whites regained control of the government, through their agents of terror the political ascendancy of the Negro was at end. The unscrupulous northern friends of the Negro having discovered that they could no longer successfully exploit them, therefore, abandoned them in the midst of their calamity. The whites proceeded to solidify the Democratic party and to eliminate the Negro entirely from politics in the South.
Politically, however, Reconstruction was in several respects a success. In the first place, the reconstructed governments were democratic, lifting a standard that the backward commonwealths of the South must still struggle for years to reach. In this social upheaval the poor white man was politically emancipated by receiving the boon of suffrage theretofore restricted to persons owning property and given a free and open door to office holding, which, under the old regime had been restricted to the few aristocrats dominating the country and State governments. These Negroes gave the South its improved judicial system and did their work so well in framing some of the constitutions that many of them with the exception of the clauses antagonistic to the Negro remained about as they were for many years. Although the Democrats got control of the State in 1877, the constitution of South Carolina of 1868 was not changed materially until 1893.
The Negro as a factor in reconstruction, moreover, instituted education at the expense of the public. Through the establishment of public schools with well equipped buildings and prepared teachers they removed from that system the stigma formerly attached to persons[13] educating their children at public expense. They, therefore, made of education a foundation upon which real democracy must build. It is only short sightedness on the part of writers to infer that because the Negro was in a few years thereafter deprived of the ballot that the good work which was done during the years that they were permitted to participate in the affairs of these States could be so easily overthrown, especially so when this progressive part of the program of the reconstructed governments which the restored whites at first abandoned has later been taken up and carried out.
Although weakened by the reaction of the North against the methods employed by politicians in maintaining the reconstructed governments at the South, which moved President Hayes to withdraw the troops from that area, the Negroes were still of some concern to the Republicans. To retain their support the Republicans often spoke of foisting upon the South the Force Bill to guarantee fair elections but rather abandoned the Negro to the fate of working out his own salvation with his oppressors. In all of the campaigns up to 1888 there was the usual waving of the "bloody shirt" to array the Negro against the South and of urging the Negro to vote the Republican ticket to pay the debt he owed the party for his freedom, hypocritically threatening also to undo many of the things which had been done to the Negro since Reconstruction. There was no sincerity in these vote-getting declarations, however, and the Negro in the South remained politically doomed.
Nothing will better bring out this treatment of the Negro by the Republican party than a study of the consideration given the race in the various platforms of that party following the Civil war. The Republicans in the convention of 1868 declared themselves in sympathy with all oppressed peoples struggling for their rights and recognized the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence as a true foundation of democratic government. That same year, however, the Democratic party recognized the question of slavery and secession as having been settled but denounced Negro supremacy.[14]
In 1872 the platform of the Republican party was somewhat more outspoken. It carried a reference to the suppression of the rebellion, the emancipation of four million slaves, the grant of equal citizenship and the establishment of universal suffrage. It said, moreover, that "neither law nor its administration should attempt any discrimination in respect to citizens by reason of race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.[15] The Liberal Republicans, rallying in a different quarter that year, declared in their platform their belief in the equality of all men before the law and the duty of the government in all its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all of whatever nativity, race, color or persuasion, religious or political. The Liberal Republicans pledged themselves to maintain the union of States, emancipation, and enfranchisement and to oppose any reopening of the questions settled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution. They advocated the removal of the disabilities of Confederates, the establishment of civil government at the South, universal amnesty, and impartial suffrage.[16]
In 1876 the Negro was given further mention by the various parties. The Prohibitionists took the lead in the declaration for equal suffrage and eligibility to office without distinction of race, religious creed, property or sex.[17] The Republicans referred in their platform to the permanent restoration of the southern section to the Union and the complete protection of all citizens in the free enjoyment of all their rights as an issue to which the Republican party stood sacredly pledged. "The power to provide for the enforcement of the principles embodied by the recent constitutional amendments," continues the platform, "is vested by those amendments in the Congress of the United States, and we declare it to be a solemn obligation of the legislative and executive departments of government to put into immediate and vigorous exercise all their constitutional powers for removing any just cause of discontent on the part of any class, and for securing to every American citizen complete liberty and exact equality in the exercise of all civil, political, and public rights. To this end we imperatively demand a congress and a chief executive whose courage and fidelity to these duties are placed beyond dispute or recall."[18]
The National Democratic platform of that year, however, spoke for the democracy of the whole country and declared its faith in the permanence of the Federal Union, and devotion to the Constitution of the United States with its amendments universally accepted as a final settlement of the controversies that engendered the Civil War; but took a bold stand for reform as necessary to rebuild and establish in the hearts of the whole people of the Union eleven years ago happily rescued from the danger of a secession of States but now to be severed from a corrupt centralism which after inflicting upon ten States the rapacity of carpet bag tyrannies, had "honey-combed the offices of the Federal government itself with the contagion of misrule and locked fast the prosperity of an industrious people in the paralysis of hard times."[19]
In 1880 The Republican party made no particular mention of the grievances of the Negroes but recited its record in suppressing the rebellion, reconstructing the Union with freedom instead of slavery as its corner stone, the transformation of four million human beings from the likeness of things to the rank of citizens and removing Congress from the infamous work of hunting fugitive slaves and charging it to see that slavery shall not exist. It declared, moreover, that the South must be divided by the peaceful agencies of the ballot that all opinions might there find free expression and to this end the honest voter must be protected against terrorism, violence or fraud.[20]
In 1884 there was no specific reference to the Negro unless it be found in the statement that the Republican party had gained its strength by "quick and faithful response to the demands of the people for the freedom and equality of all men; for a united nation, assuring the rights of all citizens."[21] The platform of the Democratic party carried a declaration equally as emphatic in that it said, "the preservation of personal rights; the equality of all citizens before the law; the reserved rights of the States and the supremacy of the Federal government within the limits of the constitution will ever form the true basis of our liberties." It further said; "Asserting the equality of all men before the law, we hold that it is the duty of the government, in its dealings with the people, to mete out equal and exact justice to all citizens, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political."[22]
Giving some impetus to the movement for woman suffrage which the Republicans had by various platforms theretofore encouraged, the Prohibitionists carried in their platform in 1888 the declaration that the right of suffrage rests on no mere circumstance of race, color, sex or nationality and that "where, from any cause, it has been held from citizens who are of suitable age and mentally and morally qualified for the exercise of an intelligent ballot, it should be restored by the people through the legislature of the several States, on such basis as they may deem wise.[23]
To protect the Negroes in their political rights, however, the Federal Government as administered by the Republican party during these years furnished little encouragement, through its much talked of enforcement of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Bills providing for adequate military protection of the Negroes at the polls were enacted but the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the Federal Government did not possess the authority to restrain mobs from interfering with elections. The Supreme Court conceded that the Fifteenth Amendment forbade the denial of the right to vote by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but easily conceded that no violation of this amendment could occur when a hostile mob excluded Negroes from the polls. Yet although the mob thus quickly triumphed in undoing the democratic reforms of Reconstruction, the South hoped thereafter to reach the same end by imposing on the Negroes a legal disability; for the Fifteenth Amendment did not assert the right of the Negro to vote. It merely said that suffrage could not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As the Negro was generally poor and in the midst of the economic depression of the South too often had to wander from place to place to seek a livelihood, he could be easily eliminated by the poll tax, the resident requirement, and educational tests.
Thus it happened. Mississippi under its new constitution in 1890 eliminated the Negro and in the next twenty years all of the cotton States except Florida and Texas followed its example. Arkansas based the franchise on a one year poll tax in 1893; South Carolina required residence, enrollment, and poll tax in 1895; Delaware adopted an educational test in 1897, Louisiana resorted to the same test and poll tax in 1898 and North Carolina fell in line in 1900. Alabama established the residence, registry and poll tax requirement in 1901; and Virginia, Georgia and Oklahoma based suffrage on property, literacy or poll tax in 1902, 1908, and 1910 respectively. As these measures bore heavily also upon certain ignorant whites they were relieved of this disability by the "Grandfather Clause" specifying that the persons deprived by these regulations of the right to vote might be placed upon the roll of voters if they had exercised this privilege before the year 1867 or were descended from such voters. This was essentially the clause adopted in North Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and Georgia.[24] The Supreme Court, however, has declared the "Grandfather Clause" a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
During the campaigns after 1888 the Republican party made no special mention of the Negro as it had formerly and did not show any inclination to shoulder the grievances of the race. At this time the Republicans were face to face with a large element of political reformers led by the Democrats who, prior to the campaign of 1884 had carried Pennsylvania and New York and made such other inroads in northern strongholds as to convince the leaders of the Republican party that the Negro issue and the "bloody shirt" would no longer suffice to hold those voters who had been won by the intelligent appeal for deliverance from the corrupt practices in the local and national governments. This movement culminated in the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884 and in his election the second time in 1892.
To attach Negroes to their cause, to be sure, the Republicans were very deferential to them in the national conventions, where they were of much service in naming candidates for the national ticket although they could not vote in the South and were not sufficiently numerous in the North to be a large factor at the polls. At the convention in 1884, the national committee had named ex-Senator Powell Clayton of Arkansas as temporary chairman of the convention, an arrangement which was supposed to be in the interest of Mr. Blaine. The young men of the party led by Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt effected the nomination from the floor of John R. Lynch, a distinguished man of color of Mississippi, and the vote by delegates elected him to the position by 431 to 387 given to Mr. Clayton.[25] Frederick Douglass received one vote for the nomination for President in 1888.[26]
After the complete undoing of the Reconstruction the Negroes were at a loss politically. A number of the foremost Negro politicians, among whom were Frederick Douglass, John R. Lynch, B. K. Bruce, John M. Langston, John C. Dancy, and a few others, were given positions in the service of the Federal Government of high sounding titles and little importance, such as Registrar of the Treasury, Recorder of Deeds, Auditor of the Navy and diplomatic posts in Negro countries. A greater number of Negroes found an outlet in the civil service. Even up until the present day it is an ardent desire of the Negro to obtain a civil service appointment. In these positions the Negroes were able to earn a comparatively easy living but were not able to do anything constructive for the uplift of their people.
The Negroes, however, had continued to support the Republican party to the full extent of their strength. But it soon became clear that the support of Negro leaders was little more than an effort directed toward obtaining a few unimportant offices. The Republicans, having long since discovered that the Negro vote of most communities can be changed neither to harm nor to help them, have consequently ceased to consider the danger of losing their support of great import. The Democratic party, moreover, has continued almost unswervingly its attitude of aloofness from the Negro. The onesidedness of the Negro vote has been declared by some Negroes to be the cause of its non-importance. With this political view some few of them have allied themselves with the Democratic party, feeling that the division of the Negro's vote may work an improvement in his political status. Because of ex-President Taft's attitude of indifference toward the Negroes a number of the Negro politicians supported Roosevelt's party in 1912 and many voted for Wilson in 1916.
With the Negro in this weak position, however, there developed in the South a movement to remove from the Republican party the stigma of its connection with the Negro by eliminating the members of that race from the circles of control in the South. This movement has been generally known as a "Lily-Whiteism." For the last twenty-five years, therefore, there have come to the National Republican Conventions from the various Southern States contesting delegations, one white and the other black, each one claiming to be the properly accredited representative of the Republican party in the State concerned. In some States the "Lily-Whites" have actually held conventions from which the Negroes were excluded or which they were not permitted to attend. Because of the difficulty of making good their claim as properly accredited delegates they have abandoned this method for the subterfuge of holding their conventions in hotels or other exclusive places which Negroes, because of the social proscription of the race, are prohibited from entering by an already well established unwritten law.
As a matter of fact the Republican party in such commonwealths no longer exists and these delegates whether white or black represent merely rotten boroughs. As they are of use, however, in selecting the candidate to be nominated for president, the administration has been very reluctant to interfere with the proposed reform in these quarters for the reason that such delegates are usually made up of persons appointed by the President of the United States to Federal positions in the South. As the President usually desires to be reelected and can control such a coterie, it has been very difficult to find one with the courage to give his influence in the direction of reform.
Early in the winter of the year when the president is to be nominated, persons supporting the administration usually visit the South laying plans for lining up these prospective delegates. Politicians interested in other candidates make similar tours through the South sometimes lavishly handling funds to the extent of buying up delegates. As the whites are in a much better position to secure the few Federal appointments allotted in the South, after the election, since the abandonment of the policy of appointing Negroes to these positions, the Negroes have usually exacted a much larger compensation for their services in the pre-convention struggle than whites have required, thus shamelessly disgracing themselves in the eyes of those who would expect the leaders of the race to play a more honorable rôle.
There are in certain sections of the South a number of men who devote all of their time to electing these delegates for service in these conventions and secure therefore adequate remuneration for a livelihood from administration to administration. The pliant Negro delegates at the convention in Chicago in 1908 and 1912 were unequal to the task of nominating a progressive candidate because of their machine like attachment to the candidacy of William Howard Taft, whom the American people would not accept. The Negro delegates, however, did much better in the convention of 1916 and still further improved by the time of the conventions of 1920, when it was impossible for any pre-convention arrangement or plan to be so carried out that any candidate could come to the convention saying that he had the Negroes to vote in any particular way. It is encouraging, moreover, to add that numbers of these delegates had received no funds from any quarter whatever, but along with white men promoting their party had contributed to the campaign funds and had paid their own expenses to the convention. They were, therefore, given a more dignified position in the management of the party affairs and were in many respects shown the same consideration as that given the white delegates, serving on various important committees and placed in strategic positions in the management of the campaign without regard to color.
In drawing to a close this discussion of the Negro in politics I wish to accentuate the fact that while the Negro is at present practically a political nonentity, he is yet potent, as is illustrated in various parts of the country. For example, at present there are two Negro councilmen in Chicago, two aldermen in New York, one assemblyman in New York, two councilmen in Baltimore, three Negro members in the West Virginia legislature, one in the California legislature, and one in the Indiana legislature. In several of the cities of the North there is such a large Negro population and so much appreciation among the Negroes of their political power that they are now launching a movement to nominate and elect members of their race to represent them in Congress. It is likely that this may soon be effected in Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia.
Norman P. Andrews
FOOTNOTES:
[1] This article was written under the direction of Dr. C. G. Woodson, under whom the writer prosecuted various courses in history during the year 1919-1920 at Howard University. The writer is indebted to him for valuable suggestions and many important facts which Dr. Woodson incorporated into the dissertation before publishing it. The writer was aided too by suggestions and facts obtained from Mr. W.T. Andrews, the editor of the Baltimore Herald, Professor Kelly Miller, and Mr. A. Phillips Randolph, of New York City.
[2] The Journal of Negro History, Vol. V, pp. 110-111.
[3] Eckenrode, Political History of Virginia during Reconstruction, pp. 127, 128, and Thompson, Reconstruction in Georgia, p. 400.
[4] Hamilton, Reconstruction in North Carolina, p. 607.
[5] Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 218.
[6] The Journal of Negro History, Vol. V, pp. 110-111.
[7] This statement is based on information obtained from numerous participants in the Reconstruction of the Southern States. Among these are John R. Lynch, Thomas E. Miller, T. T. Allain, and P. B. S. Pinchback.
[8] This is the testimony of white persons obtained by the writer.
[9] These facts were obtained through Mr. W. T. Andrews who lived in South Carolina.
[10] Simmons, Men of Mark, pp. 113, 829, 948, 1023; Woodson, A Century of Negro Migration, pp. 124-125.
[11] Report of Joint Committee to Investigate the Treasurer's Office, State of Louisiana, to the General Assembly, 1877, pp. 7-12. Majority Report; Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, pp. 77-78.
[12] Lynch, Facts of Reconstruction, ch. III. Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, p. 30.
[13] Garner, Reconstruction in Mississippi; Woodson, The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861, p. 17.
[14] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 260.
[15] Ibid., 291.
[16] Ibid., 287.
[17] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 310.
[18] Ibid., 316, 317, 318.
[19] Ibid., 322.
[20] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 356, 359.
[21] Ibid., 387.
[22] Ibid., 393, 396.
[23] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 432.
[24] Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions; Paxson, The New Nation, p. 199.
[25] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, pp. 385-386; Paxson, The New Nation, p. 128.
[26] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, p. 447.
HENRY BIBB, A COLONIZER
The underground railroad has been characterized by one historian of the Negro race as a "safety valve to the institution of slavery" since it tended to remove from the slave States those Negroes whose special abilities and leadership might have involved them in insurrections.[1] Their abilities frequently found an outlet in another land, under different conditions and in an entirely orderly way. Negroes who fled to Canada were given considerable material aid by the government of Canada and treated with sympathy by its people. Their own leaders, however, played no small part in the progress that they made in the British provinces and the names of Josiah Henson, Martin R. Delany and Henry Bibb stand for intelligence, energy and high qualities of service on behalf of the race in Canada.
Henry Bibb, born in slavery and without more than the barest rudiments of education, became prominent in the anti-slavery crusade, was actively associated with the Liberty Party in the State of Michigan during the forties and when the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850 drove thousands of his people out of the North and into Canada he set himself vigorously to the task of settling them on the land, providing schools and churches, and through his paper, The Voice of the Fugitive, exercised a good influence upon them at a time when their minds might be expected to be unsettled. Garrison and others who were active in the anti-slavery movement paid tribute to his services in that cause.
Bibb's career in slavery is told in his narrative published in New York in 1849.[2] He was born in Shelby county, Kentucky, in May, 1815, the son of a slave mother and a white father, and his childhood he sums up by saying that he was "educated in the school of adversity, whips and chains." Of his early life he writes:
"I was a wretched slave, compelled to work under the lash without wages and often without clothes enough to hide my nakedness. I have often worked without half enough to eat, both late and early, by day and by night. I have often laid my wearied limbs down at night to rest upon a dirt floor, or a bench without any covering at all, because I had nowhere else to rest my wearied body, after having worked hard all the day. I have been compelled in early life to go at the bidding of a tyrant through all kinds of weather, hot and cold, wet or dry, and without shoes frequently until the month of December, with my bare feet on the cold frosty ground, cracked open and bleeding as I walked."
From the slaveholder's standpoint he was a most unsatisfactory servant, being an incorrigible runaway, a blemish on his moral character which probably accounted for the frequency with which he changed owners, six separate sales being recorded at prices ranging from $850 to $1200. The plantation punishments had no effect upon him save to increase his desire for freedom.
As with many another slave the very evils of the system served a purpose in Bibb's life. Denied education of a normal kind he became observant and his mind was enlightened by what he saw and heard. "Among other good trades," he says, "I learned the art of running away to perfection. I made a regular business of it and never gave it up until I had broken the bonds of slavery and landed myself in Canada where I was regarded as a man and not a thing."
Ill treatment was the incentive to the first attempt of Bibb to secure his freedom. This was in 1835 and the next few years were occupied with repeated unsuccessful efforts to get away and to take his wife and child with him. He had heard of Canada and his thoughts ever turned in that direction. On several occasions his flights led him as far as the Ohio River, the boundary of freedom, but some force seemed always at hand to drag him back. At the end of 1837 he managed to reach Cincinnati and spent that winter at Perrysburg with a community of Negroes settled there. The next summer he risked his freedom in attempting to bring his wife North, was captured, lodged in jail at Louisville, and managed to escape within a few hours after being locked up. A year later he renewed the attempt, was again captured, and this time was sold, together with his wife, to a trader who dealt in the New Orleans market. It was in the fall of 1839 that the man and wife were exposed for sale in a slave yard on St. Joseph Street and in the narrative there is an interesting account of the trade in this southern city. Newly arrived blacks were taken before a city official who inspected their backs to see if they were scarred and also examined their limbs to see if they were sound. To determine their age the teeth were examined and the skin pinched on the back of the hand. In the case of old slaves the pucker would remain for some seconds. There was also rigorous examination as to mental capacity. Slaves who displayed unusual intelligence, who could read or write or who had been to Canada were not wanted. Bibb notes that practically every buyer asked him if he could read or write and if he had ever run away. Of the slave yard itself he writes:
"All classes of slaves were kept there for sale, to be sold in private or public—young or old, males or females, children or parents, husbands or wives. Every day, at ten o'clock, they were exposed for sale. They had to be in trim for showing themselves to the public for sale. Everyone's head had to be combed and their faces washed, and those who were inclined to look dark and rough were compelled to wash in greasy dish water in order to make them look slick and lively. When spectators would come in the yard the slaves were ordered out to form a line. They were made to stand up straight and look as sprightly as they could; and when they were asked a question they had to answer it as promptly as they could, and try to induce the spectator to buy them. If they failed to do this they were severely paddled after the spectators were gone. The object for using the paddle in the place of a lash was to conceal the marks which would be made by a flogging. And the object for flogging under such circumstances is to make the slave anxious to be sold."[3]
The Bibbs were eventually sold to a Red River planter with whom they had a most miserable existence. For attending without leave a religious meeting on a neighboring plantation Bibb was ordered to receive five hundred lashes. To avoid this he took his wife and child and they hid in a swamp. Dogs tracked them down and every slave on the plantation witnessed the punishment that was given. Shortly afterwards the planter sold Bibb to a party of southern sportsmen but refused to sell the wife whom Bibb never saw again. The new owners quickly resold him to an Indian from whom he managed to escape and successfully made his way through the Indian Territory, Missouri and Ohio to Michigan and Detroit.[4] He was never in the South again.
Bibb's arrival in Detroit came at what proved for him a most opportune time, since it gave scope for his abilities to be utilized in the anti-slavery cause, particularly in the State of Michigan. The Detroit Anti-Slavery Society had been formed in 1837 and by the end of 1840 there were similar societies all over the State. Michigan, at this time, was probably better organized and more united in sentiment than any other of the Northwestern States. It was the era of the Liberty Party whose platform "asserted the overmastering importance of the one question of the existence of slavery, and the necessity of bringing about a separation of the national government from all connection with the institution." This third party was facing in 1844 a crisis over the question of the annexation of Texas for which the South was a unit and on which the political organizations of the North were divided. Bibb had attended a convention of free colored people held in Detroit in 1843 and the next year he began to give addresses throughout the State in the interests of Liberty Party candidates, a full ticket for both Congress and the State legislature having been nominated. It was a bitter contest in which he engaged. The Whigs pointed out that they were standing out against the annexation of Texas, a slave empire in itself, and that votes for a third party would but pave the way for a Democratic victory. This is exactly what happened. In Michigan the Liberty Party polled six and a half per cent of the votes, but even this added to the Whig vote would not have brought victory.[5] Bibb continued to work for the Liberty Party during 1844 and 1845, going also into Ohio with Samuel Brooks and Amos Dresser. They were more than once mobbed and their meetings broken up by rowdies. Of their work Bibb writes:
"Our meetings were generally appointed in small log cabins, schoolhouses, among the farmers, which were sometimes crowded full; and where they had no horse teams it was often the case that there would be four or five ox teams come, loaded down with men, women and children to attend our meetings. The people were generally poor and in many places not able to give us a decent night's lodgings. We generally carried with us a few pounds of candles to light up the houses wherein we held our meetings after night; for in many places they had neither candles nor candlesticks. After meeting was out we have frequently gone three to eight miles to get lodgings, through the dark forest where there was scarcely any road for a wagon to run on. I have travelled for miles over swamps where the roads were covered with logs without any dirt over them, which has sometimes shook and jostled the wagon to pieces where we could find no shop or place to mend it. We would have to tie it up with bark, or take the lines to tie it with and lead the horse by the bridle. At other times we were in mud up to the hubs of the wheels."
Bibb found his real work when, with the passing of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, there began a trek of colored people out of the Northern States into Canada.[6] Before the end of 1850 several thousand of these people had crossed the border and the situation was one that called not only for the aid of generous Canadians but for all that leaders among their own people could do for them. It was Henry Bibb's belief that the future of the people of color in Canada depended upon getting them settled on the land and his mind turned to the possibilities of establishing a distinctly Negro colony on land that might be secured as a grant from the Canadian government or, if necessary, purchased from the government as had been done in the case of the Buxton settlement established by Rev. William King in what is now Southwestern Ontario. Bibb succeeded in organizing his colonization society, its object being "to assist the refugees from American slavery to obtain permanent homes and to promote their social, moral, physical and intellectual development." It was proposed that 50,000 acres of land should be purchased from the government at an estimated cost of about two dollars an acre, the purchase money to be derived partly from contributions and partly from the sale of the land. Each family settling was to receive 25 acres, five acres to be free of cost provided they cleared and cultivated it within three years from the time of occupation. The remaining twenty acres was to be paid for in nine annual installments. Only landless refugees were to receive grants, transfer except after fifteen years occupation was forbidden and all lands vacated by removal or extinction of families were to revert to the parent society. Money returned to the society was to be spent on schools, for payment of teachers and for the purchase of new land. The whole business of the organization was to be in the hands of a board of trustees.[7]
At the beginning of 1851 Bibb had established a little newspaper, published bi-monthly and known as The Voice of the Fugitive. In the issue of March 12, 1851, he raises the question as to what the fugitives stand most in need of and holds that charity is but a handicap to their progress and that they must work for their own support, preferably on the land. The recommendation of a recent convention at Sandwich is quoted to the effect that the refugees should go into agriculture, and that to this end an effort should be made to secure a grant of land from the Canadian government, this land to be disposed of in 25-acre plots. Bibb suggested that there should be at least 20,000 acres secured at once.
To aid in forwarding the plans Bibb enlisted the support of a number of Michigan people and at a meeting held in Detroit on May 21, 1851, the Refugee's Home Society was organized with the following officers: president, Deacon E. Fish, Birmingham; vice-president, Robert Garner; secretary, Rev. E. E. Kirkland, Colchester; assistant secretary, William Newman. It was decided that an effort should be made to secure 50,000 acres of land. New officers appear to have been elected almost immediately after the society had started operations, the new executives being as follows: president: J. Stone, Detroit; vice-president, A. L. Power, Farmington; secretary, E. P. Benham, Farmington; treasurer, Horace Hallock, Detroit.[8] The whole movement was heartily approved at a convention of colored people held at Sandwich on May 26, 1851. The Canada Land Company offered to sell large blocks of land to the Society at from two to four dollars an acre but no large purchases were immediately made. Instead, the society began a canvass for funds, sending out Charles C. Foote of Commerce and E. P. Benham of Farmington for this purpose. A letter from Foote in The Voice of the Fugitive of July 30, 1851, says "The plan seems popular and he looks forward to the day when the colored people will nestle in the mane of the British lion." In the latter part of 1851 a purchase of land was made from the Canada Company and a contract was entered into for further purchases as soon as the funds should be available.
At the meeting of the Society held in Farmington on January 29, 1852, the following officers were elected: president, Nathan Stone, Detroit; vice-president, A. L. Power, Farmington; treasurer, Horace Hallock, Detroit; recording secretary, E. P. Benham, Livonia; corresponding secretary, Mrs. Mary Bibb, Windsor; Executive William Lolason, Detroit; Colman Freeman, Windsor; Elisha Vanzant, Detroit; David Hotchkiss, Amherstburg; and Henry Bibb, Windsor, Vanzant and Bibb were appointed trustees, the latter reporting the purchase of 200 acres of land at three dollars an acre. It was decided to reserve ten acres for school purposes, to send out J. F. Dolbeare as agent to collect funds and to make Bibb's newspaper the official organ of the society.[10]
The second annual report of the Anti-Slavery Society of Canada (1853) reported that at that time the Refugee's Home Society had purchased 1328 acres of land of which 600 acres had been taken up by settlers. The scheme was considered a good one but it was emphasized that good management would be needed. The progress of the Elgin or Buxton settlement showed that success was possible.
When Benjamin Drew visited Canada in 1854 he found that the Society had purchased nearly 2,000 acres of land, that forty of the 25-acre plots had been taken up and that there were 20 families located. A school was being maintained during three-fourths of the year, intoxicating liquors had been completely banned and a society known as the True Band had been organized to look after the best moral and educational interests of the colony.[11] The colony was fortunate in the first teacher that was engaged for the school. This was Mrs. Laura S. Haviland, who came in the fall of 1852 and began her work in the frame building which had been erected for general meeting purposes. So great was the interest in her Bible classes that even aged people would come many miles to attend. Similar success attended her experiment of an unsectarian church. In her autobiography she tells something of the conditions in the colony while she was there. In their clearings the settlers raised corn, potatoes and other vegetables while a few had put in two or three acres of wheat. Mrs. Haviland's account of the colony is much more favorable than some of the adverse stories that were sent abroad regarding it.[12]
Rev. W. M. Mitchell, who was a Negro missionary among his own people in Toronto, makes the following reference to the colony in his "Underground Railroad":
"About ten miles from Windsor there is a settlement of 5000 acres which extends over a large part of Essex county. It is called the Fugitives' Home. Several years ago a very enterprising and intelligent fugitive slave ... bought land from the government, divided it into 20-acre plots and sold it to other fugitives, giving them five to ten years for payments. Emigrants settled here in such large numbers that it is called the Fugitives' Home. The larger portion of the land is still uncultivated, a great deal is highly cultivated and many are doing well."
The writer goes on to point out the evidences of the material advancement of the colony. There were two schools, the government paying half the salary of the teacher and the other half being collected from the parents. The school he found was also used for the church services, though the spirituality of the people seemed low.[13]
The record of Henry Bibb's activities in Canada show that he took a broad view of the refugee question. He associated himself actively with the Anti-Slavery Society of Canada at its formation in 1851 and at the first annual meeting held in Toronto in 1852 was elected one of the vice-presidents. In the reports of this organization will be found several references to his work. He was also the first president of the Windsor branch of the Anti-Slavery Society and made several tours through the western end of Upper Canada visiting the Negro communities and speaking on the slavery issue. In his newspaper, The Voice of the Fugitive, he chronicled every movement that would aid in the uplift of his people and set forth their needs in an admirable way. Its columns give a large amount of information concerning the fugitives in Canada after 1850.
Bibb's colonization plan was a well-meant effort to improve the status of the Negro in Canada. While it lacked the permanence of the Elgin settlement, which even today preserves its character, it opened the way for a certain number of the refugees to provide for their own needs and it lessened to some extent the congestion of refugees in border towns like Windsor and Sandwich. It is a debatable question whether segregation of these people was wise or not. At that time it seemed almost the only solution of the very pressing problem. After the Civil war many of the Negroes in Canada returned to the United States and those who remained found conditions easier. There was usually work for any man who was willing to labor and it is a well-recorded fact that many of the fugitives, entering the country under the most adverse of circumstances, succeeded in getting ahead and gathering together property. Benjamin Drew's picture of the Canadian Negroes as he found them in the middle of the fifties is favorable and when Dr. Samuel G. Howe investigated the Canadian situation on behalf of the Freedmen's Inquiry Commission in 1863[14] he was able to report:
"The refugees in Canada earn a living, and gather property; they marry and respect women; they build churches and send their children to schools; they improve in manners and morals—not because they are picked men but simply because they are free men. Each of them may say, as millions will soon say, 'When I was a slave, I spake as a slave, I understood as a slave, I thought as a slave; but when I became a free man I put away slavish things.'"
Fred Landon
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Williams, G. W., History of the Negro Race in America, N. Y., 1883, Vol. II, p. 58.
[2] See The Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Henry Bibb, an American Slave, written by himself, with an introduction by Lucius Matlack, New York, 1849. I am indebted to the Brooklyn Public Library for the loan of this book.
[3] Compare with this description of a New Orleans slave pen the descriptions of Richmond auctions by W. H. Russell, My Diary North and South, N. Y., 1863, page 68, and William Chambers, Things as they are in America, London, 1854, pages 273-286.
[4] He says that his object in going to Detroit was to get some schooling. He was unable to meet the expense, however, and as he puts it: "I graduated in three weeks and this was all the schooling I ever had in my life." His teacher for this brief period was W. C. Monroe who afterwards presided at John Brown's Chatham Convention in May, 1858.
[5] See Smith, Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest, New York, 1897.
[6] See The Journal of Negro History, Vol. V, No. 1, January, 1920, pp. 22-36.
[7] This plan was recommended by a convention of colored people held at Sandwich, C. W., early in 1851. See The Voice of the Fugitive, March 12, 1851. A file of this paper for 1851-2 is in the library of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
[8] The Voice of the Fugitive, June 4, 1851.
[9] The Voice of the Fugitive, Nov. 19, 1851.
[10] Ibid., Jan. 29, 1852. See also The Liberator, June 11, 1852.
[11] Ibid., The Refugee, or the Narratives of Fugitive Slaves in Canada related by themselves, Boston. 1856, pp. 323-326.
[12] Hairland, A Woman's Life Work, Grand Rapids, 1881, p. 192.
[13] Mitchell, Underground Railroad, London, 1860, pp. 142-149.
[14] Howe, The Refugees from Slavery in Canada West, Report to the Freedmen's Inquiry Commission, Boston, 1864. The Freedmen's Inquiry Commission was instituted by Stanton in 1863 to consider what should be done for slaves already freed. The members of the Commission were Dr. Samuel G. Howe, Robert Dale Owen and James Mackay.
MYRTILLA MINER
A century ago it was generally conceded that a person unfitted for any other occupation either public or private could at least be a teacher, for many teachers of the colonies were felons and convicts brought to America to serve as indentured servants. This egregious error, however, was discovered by the pioneers of the new era in education, who saw clearly enough that the strength of the nation depended upon the professional as well as the academic equipment of its teachers and thus the training school for teachers had its birth. Its influence has been most significant in raising the standards of efficiency in the elementary schools and equally significant is its need in the high schools and colleges of this country.
No one in the District of Columbia can think of the benefits derived from the professional teacher training without immediate recollection and sacred memory of its pioneer and benefactress, Myrtilla Miner. For her noble character, her high ideals, her progressive methods in education, her struggles against opposition in the pursuit of her Godgiven task, her lasting contribution of an organized institution for the training of teachers in the spirit of the Master to serve all humanity, the citizens of the District of Columbia and especially the people of color must ever revere her memory.[1]
On the 4th of March, 1815, in Brookfield, Madison County, New York, Myrtilla Miner, of poor and humble, yet of industrious parentage, was born. As a child, though frail of physique and deprived of opportunity, her indomitable will enabled her to overcome the obstacles of poverty and superstition as well as poor health. Wading through them all she earned enough by arduous labor in the hopfields near her home to purchase books for her further enlightenment. These struggles against fate, however, were the rocks upon which her noble character was built. Here were sown the seed of sympathy for the weak, appreciation for the struggling, and respect for the ambitious.
After a year's training at Clinton, Oneida County, New York, where she obtained the elements of education under the most adverse circumstances of ill health and lack of funds, Miss Miner accepted a call to teach in Mississippi in order to pay the debts incurred for the training she had already received. Her experience in Mississippi was indeed invaluable, for there she learned through horrible experiences the evils of the institution of slavery. She boldly protested against the cruelties of the slaveholders and the institution in general. She innocently requested permission to teach the slaves of the planter whose daughters she was then instructing. When told that such was a criminal offense against the laws of Mississippi and that she should "go North and teach the 'Niggers,'" Miss Miner with an intrepid spirit resolved then and there that she would go North and teach them. Out of this unpleasant experience developed the determination to found a Normal School for girls of color in the city of Washington.
Returning North, Miss Miner found other difficulties than poor health confronting her in her efforts to establish a school for the Negro youth in the District of Columbia. Funds had to be raised, pro-slavery opposition had to be overcome, and public sentiment had to be changed at least to indifference. Each of these in itself was sufficiently colossal to try the strength, physical and moral, of the ablest anti-slavery agitators of that day. It was at the time of the passage of that infamous Fugitive Slave Law, when freedmen and runaways like William Parker, Jerry McHenry and Joshua Glover were knocked down, beaten, bound and cast into prison; when abolitionists were incarcerated for their anti-slavery propaganda and giving aid to the fugitives; when even our valiant Frederick Douglass admitted himself too timid to support any such project as that undertaken by Miss Miner in the city of Washington.[2] It was in times such as these that this fearless and resolute little woman, with an enthusiasm that seemingly glistened in her penetrating eyes, determined to give her life to the cause of alleviating suffering, dispelling ignorance, and liberating the oppressed Americans in body and mind.
With the small sum of one hundred dollars that she had secured from Mrs. Ednah Thomas,[3] of Philadelphia, a member of the Society of Friends, Miss Miner started out upon her great work in behalf of the Negro children of the District of Columbia. Her thrift prompted her to solicit funds of various and peculiar sorts. Donations of old papers, books, weights, measures and other castaway material were transformed by this real teacher into valuable material for the instruction of her undeveloped pupils.
Funds of the material sort were not the only difficulties that beset her road of progress, for pro-slavery opposition assailed Miss Miner from every side.[4] Such propaganda as the following appeared in the National Intelligencer, a Washington newspaper of pro-slavery sentiments and was spread far and wide. (1) The school would attract free colored people from the adjoining States, (2) it was proposed to give them an education far beyond what their political and social condition would justify, (3) the school would be a center of influence directed against the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia, and (4) it might endanger the institution of slavery and even rend asunder the Union itself.[5]
The truth of some parts of this declaration was quite evident and irrefutable, for education, as Miss Miner understood it, was destined to make every slave a man and every man free. This, of course, increased the difficulty of Miss Miner's task but her faith was abiding and her courage unabated. Miss Miner realized fully that the lot of the eight thousand free people of color of the District of Columbia was but little better than that of the 3,000 slaves, for the former, though free according to the letter of the law, in actual life had no rights that a white man was compelled to respect. They were not admitted to public institutions, could not attend the city schools, could not testify against a white man in court, and could not travel without a pass without running the risk of being cast into prison.
Amidst it all, on the 6th day of December 1851, in a rented room about fourteen feet square, in the frame house on Eleventh Street near New York Avenue then owned and occupied as a dwelling by Edward C. Younger,[6] a Negro, Myrtilla Miner with six pupils established as a private institution for the education of girls of color the first Normal School in the District of Columbia and the fourth one in the United States. Increase of enrollment soon forced her to secure accommodations and within two months she had moved into a house on the north side of F Street between Eighteenth and Nineteenth, near the house then occupied by William T. Carroll and Charles H. Winder. This house furnished her a very comfortable room for her growing school of well-behaved girls, from the best Negro families of the District of Columbia. Threats on the part of white neighbors to set fire to the house forced her to leave the home of the Negro family with whom she had stayed but one month and to seek quarters elsewhere. Miss Miner then succeeded in getting accommodations in the dwelling-house of a German family on K Street, near the K Street market. After tarrying a few months there, she moved to L Street into a room in the building known as the "The Two Sisters," then occupied by a white family. But the inconvenience of holding school in rented quarters of private dwellings proved a very unpleasant one indeed; for not only did she suffer the lack of comfort which such quarters naturally could not offer, but found herself constantly harassed by the necessity of moving to escape the enmity and persecution of her white neighbors.
A new day, however, was to dawn. With the aid of Harriet Beecher Stowe, Dr. Gamaliel Bailey and a few such faithful Philadelphia friends as Thomas Williamson, Samuel Rhoads, Benjamin Tatham, Jasper Cope and Catherine Morris, enough funds were raised to purchase a site of three acres or more for a permanent home on a lot near N Street and New Hampshire Avenue, between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets, Northwest. Though the environment of this new home was most pleasing and beautiful, being surrounded with flowers and fruit trees, the enmity of the white hoodlums still followed her. She and her pupils were frequently assailed with torrents of stones and other missiles. Once threatened by mob violence, Miss Miner bravely and defiantly exclaimed, "Mob my school! You dare not! If you tear it down over my head I shall get another house. There is no law to prevent my teaching these people and I shall teach them even unto death!" Testimony of some of Miss Miner's former pupils upholds such a defiance as truly descriptive of her fearless nature.
In its earlier days the Miner Normal School was supported by private funds and directed by a board of trustees consisting of Benjamin Tatham and H. W. Bellows of New York; Samuel M. Janney of Virginia; Johns Hopkins of Baltimore; Samuel Rhoads and Thomas Williamson of Philadelphia; G. Bailey and L. D. Gale of Washington; C. E. Stowe of Andover; H. W. Beecher of Brooklyn, together with an executive committee consisting of S. J. Bowen, J. M. Wilson and L. D. Gale of Washington; Miss Miner, principal and William H. Beecher, secretary.
The curriculum of the school then embraced boarding, domestic economy, teachers' training course and the primary departments. It is interesting to note that some of the advanced ideas in education today, such as student self-government, vitalized teaching, socialized recitation, and civic as well as personal hygiene, were taught and practiced by Miss Miner during the fifties of the last century.
As an illustration of pupil self-government, I quote the following from the Memoir of M. Miner by Mrs. Ellen M. O'Connor, concerning a visit made by Miss Margaret Robinson of Philadelphia to Miss Miner's school: "In the winter of 1853 accompanied by a friend, I visited the school of Myrtilla Miner, under circumstances of peculiar interest. Arriving about ten A. M., we learned from a pupil at the door that the teacher was absent on business of importance to the school. We were not a little disappointed, supposing all recitations would await her coming. What was our surprise on entering to find every girl in her place, closely occupied with her studies. We seated ourselves by polite invitation; soon a class read; then one in mental arithmetic exercised itself, the more advanced pupils acting as monitors; all was done without confusion. When the teacher entered she expressed no surprise, but took up the business where she found it and went on." On one occasion, being obliged to leave for several days, Miss Miner propounded to the pupils the question, whether the school should be closed, or they should continue their exercises without her? They chose the latter. On her return she found all doing well, not the least disorder having occurred.
As to vitalized teaching, Matilda Jones Madden, one of Miss Miner's pupils, wrote the following: "She gave special attention to the proper writing of letters and induced a varied correspondence between many prominent persons and her pupils, thus in a practical way bringing her school into larger notice with many of its patrons and friends and vastly increasing the experience of her pupils."
Mrs. John F. N. Wilkinson, a former pupil of Miss Miner, of Washington, D. C., states that Miss Miner held classes in astronomy with the larger girls who were required to meet at the school in the evenings to study their lessons from nature. Mrs. Amelia E. Wormley, the mother of the writer, residing in Washington, also a pupil of Miss Miner, recalls vividly the emphasis which Miss Miner placed upon the teaching of physical culture and the tenderness with which she handled the younger children of her school.[7]
The school increased in usefulness and importance. As a result of this, on March 3, 1863, the Senate and House of Representatives passed an act to incorporate this institution for the education of girls of color in the District of Columbia. By the act William H. Channing, George J. Abbot, Miss Miner, and others, their associate and successors were constituted and declared a body politic and corporate by the name and title of "The Institution for the Education of Colored Youth," to be located in the District of Columbia. Though this act of Congress legalized the institution, the school appears to have lapsed into inactivity from 1863 to 1871 because of the absence of its guiding spirit, Miss Miner. On account of ill health she was compelled to give up the work, and the strain and stress of civil affairs reduced national interest and support to a minimum. After a sojourn of three years in California in search of renewed energy and more funds for the fulfillment of her plans and the consummation of her ideals, Miss Miner departed from this life at the home of Mrs. Nancy M. Johnson of Washington, D. C., on the 17th of December 1864.
In 1871 the work of the school was resumed in connection with Howard University. A preparatory and Normal Department was opened and controlled by this institution but supported by the Miner Funds. The school existed in this connection until September 13, 1876, when it began a separate and independent existence which lasted until 1879 when it was taken over by the school system of the District of Columbia. From 1879 to 1887 the Miner Normal School was jointly controlled by the Board[8] of Trustees of the Public Schools of the District and the Miner Board of Trustees, the principal's salary being paid by the Miner Board to which she made her reports while the obligation of keeping up the enrollment of the school was assumed by the Trustees representing the District Government.
In 1887 the Trustees of the District assumed full charge of the school thus centralizing authority and management. The unification of the dual management under District authority added keener interest on the part of the citizenship of the community and a deeper feeling of responsibility on the part of the faculty. Fortunately for the institution, moreover, the women who succeeded Miss Miner as the heads of this institution caught the great spirit of their predecessor and in their efforts to continue the useful work which she had done, followed so closely in the path which she had trodden as to assure success and preclude any necessity for general reorganization.
The first of these women to take up the work of Miss Miner, was Miss Mary B. Smith, of Beverly, Massachusetts, who was assisted by her sister Miss Sarah R. Smith. These two worthy ladies were succeeded by Miss Martha Briggs who is characterized by Dr. W. S. Montgomery in his Historical Sketch on Education for the Colored Race in the District of Columbia, 1807-1905, "as a born teacher whose work showed those qualities of head and heart that have made her name famous in the annals of education in the character of the graduates. The student teachers caught her missionary spirit and went forth from her presence stronger souls, full of sympathy to magnify the teacher's vocation and to inspire the learner. Many of the women who sat at her feet are laboring in the schools here now, filling the highest positions and in beauty and richness of character running like a thread of gold through the teaching corps."
Miss Briggs was succeeded in 1883 by Dr. Lucy E. Moten, who after faithful and successful service for thirty-seven years, retired June 20, 1920. As principal of the Miner Normal School, Dr. Moten graduated the majority of the teachers now employed in the public schools of the District. She saw the Normal course lengthened from a one year course to that of a two year course, offering greater opportunity for broader professional equipment of the student teachers, the results of which are manifest in the Washington Public Schools today. This school, however, is destined in the near future to undergo other changes in the line of progress. It may be the extension of the course to three years or the development of a Teacher's college of four years which will offer courses leading to a degree. With an enthusiastic whole-hearted response of the teaching corps of Washington, D. C., to the slogan of the new Superintendent, Dr. Frank Washington Ballou—"Hats off to the past and coats off to the future," The Miner Normal School will reach higher in its aim to serve and realize the ideals of its noble founder and benefactress, whose struggles and sacrifices are sacred in the memory of every teacher of color in the District of Columbia.
G. Smith Wormley.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The facts set forth in this sketch were obtained largely from Ellen M. O'Connor's Myrtilla Miner, A Memoir; W. S. Montgomery's Historical Sketch of the Education for the Colored Race in the District of Columbia, 1807-1905; and The Special Report of the Commissioner of Education on the condition and improvement of the Public Schools in the District of Columbia, submitted to the Senate June 1868 and the House, with additions, June 17, 1870-1871. Some valuable facts were also obtained from former pupils of Miss Myrtilla Miner now residing in the District of Columbia and from public spirited citizens who cooperated with her.
[2] O'Connor, Memoir of Myrtilla Miner, Letter of Frederick Douglass, p. 23.
[3] Special Report of Commissioner of Education, Washington, D.C., Henry Barnard, 1868, p. 207.
[4] She had some friends, however, as the following shows:
"There are in the United States 500,000 free people of color. They are generally, although subject to taxation, excluded by law or prejudice from schools of every grade. Their case becomes at once an object of charity which rises infinitely above all party or sectional lines. This charity we are gratified in being able to state has already been inaugurated, through the devoted labors of an excellent young lady from Western New York by the name of Miss Myrtilla Miner who has established and maintained for the past four years in the city of Washington a school for the education of free colored youth. This school is placed there because it is national ground, and the nation is responsible for the well-being of its population; because there are there 11,000 of this suffering people excluded by law from schools and destitute of instruction; because there are in the adjoining States of Maryland and Virginia 130,000 equally destitute, who can be reached in no other way; and because it is hoped through this means to reach a class of girls of peculiar interest, often the most beautiful and intelligent, and yet the most hopelessly wretched, and who are often objects of strong paternal affection. The slaveholder would gladly educate and save these children, but domestic peace drives them from his hearth; he cannot emancipate them to be victims of violence or lust; he cannot send them to Northern schools, where prejudice would brand them, and it is proposed to open an asylum near them, where they may be brought, emancipated, educated and taught housewifery as well as science, and thus be prepared to become teachers among their own mixed race.
"In its present condition this school embraces boarding, domestic economy, normal teachers and primary departments, and is placed under the care of an association consisting of the following trustees: Benjamin Tatham, New York; Samuel M. Janney, Loudoun County, Virginia; Johns Hopkins, Baltimore; Samuel Rhoads and Thomas Williamson, Philadelphia; G. Bailey and L. D. Gale, Washington; H. W. Bellows, New York; C. E. Stowe, Andover; H. W. Beecher, Brooklyn, together with an executive committee consisting of S. J. Bowen, J. M. Wilson and L. D. Gale, of Washington; and M. Miner, Principal, and William H. Beecher, of Reading, Secretary.
"The trustees state that a very eligible site of three acres, within the city limits of Washington, of the northwest, has already been purchased, paid for and secured to the trustees, and that all which is now wanted is $20,000 wherewith to erect a larger and more suitable edifice for the reception of the applicants pressing upon it from the numerous free colored blacks in the District and adjacent States. The proposed edifice is designed to accommodate 150 scholars and to furnish homes for the teachers and pupils from a distance. The enlarged school will include the higher branches in its system of instruction.
"There was a meeting yesterday afternoon, in an ante-room of Tremont Temple, of gentlemen called together to listen to the statements of the Secretary of the Association regarding this school. The meeting was small, but embraced such gentlemen as Hon. George S. Hillard, Rev. Dr. Lathrop, Rev. C. E. Hale, and Deacon Greele, all of whom are deeply interested in the project.
"The meeting decided to draw up and circulate a subscription paper, and counted upon receiving $10,000 for the purpose in this city. The pastors of several churches in New York had pledged their churches in the sum of a thousand dollars each. Mr. Beecher will solicit subscriptions in most of the principal towns of Massachusetts. The designs and benefits of the project will be fully set forth at a public meeting in this city in the course of a fortnight."—The Boston Journal, April 18, 1857.
[5] An extract from Walter Lenox's article opposing Miss Miner's School, follows:
"With justice we can say to the advocate of this measure, you are not competent to decide this question: your habits of thought, your ignorance of our true relations to the colored population, prevent you from making a full and candid examination of its merits, and, above all, the temper of the public mind is inauspicious, even for its consideration. If your humanity demands this particular sphere for its action, and if, to use your own language, prejudice would brand them at your northern schools, establish institutions in the free States, dispense your money there abundantly as your charity will supply, draw to them the unfortunate at your own door, or from abroad, and in all respects gratify the largest impulses of your philanthropy; but do not seek to impose upon us a system contrary to our wishes and interests, and for the further reason that by so doing you injure the cause of those whom you express a wish to serve."—National Intelligencer, May 6, 1857.
[6] Special Report, Commissioner of Education, Washington, D. C., 1868, p. 207.
[7] This statement is based on information obtained from Mrs. John F. N. Wilkinson and Mrs. Amelia E. Wormley, who were pupils of Myrtilla Miner.
[8] Report of Board of Education, Dr. John Smith, Statistician.
COMMUNICATIONS
During the last five years a number of valuable facts have come to the office of the editor in various communications from persons interested in the work which the Association has been promoting. While these communications do not as a whole bear upon any particular phase of Negro history, they will certainly be valuable to one making researches in the general field. Some of these follow.
A Suggestion
Washington, D. C., Dec. 23, 1916.
Carter G. Woodson,
My Dear Sir: I notice by the press your Connection with the "Douglass" celebration. It might interest you to receive the enclosed from a rank abolitionist of the John Brown School. After service in Kansas with the Brown element, then in open rebellion against the United States, as typified in men like Judge Taney, who decided that the black man had no rights the white man was bound to respect, I entered the Union army and served in it as a private in the 5th Wis. Infy and as Adjt. of the 7th Eastern Shore Md. Infy—3 years and 6 mos.... I wish some of your influential men would start a movement to erect a monument here for old John Brown, who gave his life to free the country from the great curse of slavery.
Cordially,
(Signed) John E. Rastall.
Some Interesting Facts
Marion, Alabama
July 7th 1916Dr. C. G. Woodson
Dear Sir:
Absence from home has prevented my replying to your request sooner.
The majority of masters in this section of the country were kind to their slaves. They gave them plenty of good wholesome food, good clothes, (warm ones in winter) comfortable homes and attention from Doctors when sick. There were churches on nearly every plantation and ministers provided to preach to them. The only very cruel masters were Northern men who treated their slaves like beasts. For many years it was against the law to teach negroes to read or write because some of them would read things from the North that made them dissatisfied but our family owned such good negroes, who had principle like white people we did not think it could hurt them, and we taught them to read and write. There has always been a kind feeling between the whites and slaves in this country. The young ones were our playmates in childhood. The older ones our nurses and cooks who petted us and loved us as their own color. They were faithful during the War when our protectors were in the Army, and now altho' it is fifty years since they were freed, many of them are our best friends.—I do not know of anything else you wanted to know or I would gladly write you. In some sections of the South there may have been cruel treatment but it was generally from the overseers who were ignorant men and took advantage of their position to give license to their cruel natures.
James Childs and all of his family and many of his relatives belonged to my mother, and there still exists a kind feeling between us that will only be severed by Death. I would like to hear from him. I am nearly 75 years old and cannot be here much longer but want to do all the good I can before I am called.
Respectfully
(Signed) Mrs. Jas. A. Smith,
Marion
Alabama
23 Dryads Green,
Nov. 7, 1916.My dear Mr. Woodson:
Your letter in the interest of The Journal of Negro History is welcome. I will try to send you a subscriber or two.
Allow me to suggest a point. It may have been well covered already without my knowing of it. In Louisiana and, I think, in some other states, in Reconstruction days, the lieutenant-governorship was conceded by the Republican party, regularly, to a man of color. These men were sometimes, to say no more, of high character and ability. Such a one in Louisiana was Oscar J. Dunn, the first of them. He was of unmixt African origin. His signal ability and high integrity were acknowledged by his political enemies in the most rancorous days of his career, and his funeral was attended by Confederate generals.
I wish your enterprise the fullest measure of success.
Yours truly,
(Signed) Geo. W. Cable.
Washington, D.C.
1443 R St., N. W.,
Nov. 1 —17.Mr. Carter G. Woodson,
1216 You St., N.W.,
Washington, D. C.Dear Sir:
I recently received from you a letter followed soon by a volume of The Journal of Negro History edited by yourself which I have scanned and am much impressed with its merits and consider a valuable contribution to our historical literature.
It is somewhat unusual to find colored men in America of American birth who are individually conversant with all of the West Indies a part of South America and the western part of Europe.
My advent in life began at an epoch in the early history of Baltimore when incidents occurred that seem to have escaped the notice of the numerous writers of the history of our race which I shall briefly relate.
Owing to the rapid decadence of the sugar industries of the British West Indies on the Abolition of Slavery and the gravity anent the threatened ruin of the peasantry, some philanthropists and business men from England were sent to Baltimore to try to get free colored people to go to Trinidad. They spoke in many colored churches and succeeded in interesting them so that several shiploads were sent. My father and mother and three children were of the number. I was an infant in arms.
I received an education there and after I grew up was variously employed as bookkeeper, clerking in dry goods stores, in the City Hall, overseer on sugar estate, coach and sign painter, was afterwards sent for by my father who was at the gold mines of Caratal in Venezuela and on my return to Trinidad visited several other islands of the West Indies.
I next returned to America my natal home the second year of Andrew Johnson's term.
I have not since led an idle life. For nearly 25 years I have been engaged as an itinerant private tutor teaching adult folks and I flatter myself that I was very successful among the hundreds of my pupils.
I found on my arrival in America that education was at a very low ebb amongst the members of my race perhaps not more than 15% of adult folks one would encounter in the streets could read and write.
When the Amendments were passed by Congress conferring citizenship upon colored people I threw myself into the political current and was the first vice president of the 11th ward of Baltimore city which a few years subsequently chose a colored councilman, Harry Cummins.
I became a merchant meanwhile experimenting in groceries, but after a year relinquished this for dry goods for which my early acquaintance therewith amply fitted me. I kept a dry goods store in Baltimore for seven years then went to Jacksonville, Fla. where I successfully continued the business for eighteen years.
While I was in Baltimore I twice passed the Civil Service examination with a handsome percentage this I did simply from curiosity. I kept strictly to merchandise and have never earned a dollar of Uncle Sam's money.
In 1909 and again in 1912 myself and wife, both of us having a knowledge of French and Spanish and I a little Italian made a tour of Western Europe viz, Gibralter Italy Switzerland France Germany Holland Belgium and England plodding on foot amongst the common people studying sociological conditions and comparing with our own people. I find the contrast of the humbler class of Europe also the colored races of the West Indies and South America with less opportunities possessed of more enterprise and ambition than the colored people of America.
It is a lamentable fact that the principal attraction of those who should be our strong men and leaders in enterprise those of high school and college training consists of Uncle Sam's bounty and in the absence of this to cling to some white man in private life.
I have for many years been an ardent advocate of business amongst our people and to this end I have written contributions to the Commonwealth of Baltimore a paper once edited by John E. Bruce (Bruce Grit) the Colored American of Washington, and to other papers edited by our race.
My attitude towards other enterprises is that we are sufficiently and disproportionately represented in other branches, especially teaching preaching politics governmental patronage &c. which require no financial responsibility; consequently the results place us in the attitude of a Castillian gentleman who is facetiously described thus—Caballero sin caballo, Mucho piojo, poco dinero, that is, a knight without a horse, Plenty of lice, little money.
As a race we are the poorest numerically of any race in America. We have so little ambition and so envious and void of race pride. We don't mind a white man climbing over our heads but a colored man never and if you doubt me keep a store.
I have grown weary of the struggle and am leaving the fight to the younger men who I hope may prove vigorous champions.
I have done my part, I am
Yours very truly
(Signed) Stansbury Boyce.
London, Ont. October 25/1918
Dr. Carter G. Woodson,
Journal of Negro History,
Washington, D. C.Dear Dr. Woodson,
I have been reading your "Century of Negro Migration" with interest. On page 36 you speak of a change of attitude on the part of Canadians towards the refugees. I do not know to what this refers. The attitude of the Canadian government never changed—it granted asylum and protection right up to the Civil War and afterwards. From the very earliest days there was an occasional show of prejudice but I doubt if this was greater in 1855 than in 1845 or 1835. The laws were administered fairly, the Negro exercised his vote, could get land cheaply if he desired to farm. The chief prejudice was shown in the schools though this only in some places, this city for instance. But this was only occasional, not general, and you are quite correct in saying that "these British Americans never made the life of the Negro there so intolerable as was the case in some of the free States."
On the same page there is a slight error in the use of the word "towns" in connection with the settlements of refugees in Southern Ontario.
"Dawn" was not a town but a farming community, "The Dawn Settlement" "Colchester" was the same, it is the name now given to a township in Essex county.
"Elgin" was not the name of a Settlement but of the association which managed the settlement. Buxton was the settlement founded by the Elgin association.
"Bush", i.e. "The Bush" is the term applied to a great tract of country north of Toronto, bushland, in which there were some Negro farmers.
"Wilberforce" was also a tract of land divided into farms and termed the Wilberforce settlement. It is in Middlesex county, near London.
"Riley" should be "Raleigh," it is the township in which the Elgin association's settlement was located. It is in Kent County.
"Anderton" is also the name of a township in Essex county.
"Gonfield" should be "Gosfield." It is also a township in Essex county.
These are only minor matters but you might desire to make the change in another edition.
I think I shall write something dealing with the Canadian end of your subject, from the economic standpoint. The Journal is a publication of which as Editor you can be proud. It maintains a high standard. I intend to have it added to the Western University's list of periodicals this year.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Fred Landon.
Bird-in-Hand, Pa., Aug. 21, 1918.
Carter G. Woodson, Esq.,Dear Mr. Woodson:
I have read most of the articles in the Journal with deep interest and think it a valuable periodical. One or two mistakes I noticed; one writer says that President Lincoln thought that "the war should be over in ninety days." It was Seward, not Lincoln that cherished this almost insane idea.—Please do not set me down as a carping critic when I say that I am very sorry that the long article on "Slavery in Kentucky" was printed without comment or correction. To speak of Henry Clay as an anti-slavery man seems absurd to people like myself, born into real anti-slavery families and familiar almost from infancy with the anti-slavery struggle. The interview with Mr. Mendenhall, a Friend (Quaker) is told somewhat differently from what I heard it in my childhood. I always understood that a delegation of Friends called upon him and he told them to go home, that his "Negroes were sleek and fat." The comparison between Friends and his negroes, as given in Mr. McDougle's article is even more insulting than is anything in the story as I heard it. One of my earliest recollections is seeing in my grandmother's kitchen in Phila., "Clary" a little octoroon woman, who was, I was told, either once the mistress or else the daughter of Henry Clay. From this you may judge what his moral reputation must have been.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) (Mrs.) Marianna G. Brubaker.
Some Corrections
Bird-in-Hand, Pa., April 21, 1920.
Mr. Carter G. Woodson,
My dear Mr. Woodson:
On the next page will be found a correction of the article "The Negro Migration to Canada after 1850," which you may print or not, as you choose. In a historical periodical, accuracy is important, is it not?
Very truly yours,
Signed (Mrs.) Marianna G. Brubaker.
On page 30 of the Journal of Negro History for January reference is made to the famous Christiana Riot of Sept. 11, 1851. Christiana is about nineteen—not two—miles from Lancaster. Parker, the hero of this event, was a wonderful man. He returned to Christiana in the summer of 1872, spoke at a political meeting there and spent some time visiting friends, by whom he was greatly admired and respected. The exact distance from Lancaster is important because of the very different character of the two communities.
(Signed) Marianna G. Brubaker.
Bird-in-Hand, Pa., April 21.
DOCUMENTS
The following letter was addressed to the City Council of Washington, D.C., July 15, 1833, by Joseph Jefferson, Sr., and Mr. Mackenzie, managers of the Washington Theatre.[1]
Dear Sir:
"Permit us to take the liberty of representing to you a burden that oppresses us most heavily, and of requesting your kind endeavors so to represent the case before the mayor and council that we may obtain all the relief that it is in their power to grant.
"You must be aware that we pay nightly to the city a tax of $6 for permission to perform in the theater; in the year 1832 this amounted to nearly $1,400 in the aggregate; we pay this tax cheerfully, and all we ask in return is a liberal protection and support from the city authorities.
"There is at present a law in force which authorizes the constables of the city to arrest the colored people if on the street after 9 o'clock without a pass. A great proportion of our audience consists of persons of this caste, and they are consequently deterred from giving us that support that they would otherwise do.
"Can there be any modification of that law suggested, or will the mayor and council authorize us to give passes to those colored persons who leave the theatre for the purpose of proceeding directly to their homes?
"In the city of Baltimore, where we have a theatre, and pay a smaller license than we do here, the law, as regards the colored people, is not acted upon when they are coming or going to the theatre.
"In a pecuniary point of view, we look upon this law as a detriment to us of $10 nightly, and we have great reason to hope that a law that rests so heavily upon us alone may meet with the kind consideration of the mayor and council, and be so modified as to relieve us from the heavy loss that it causes us at present to incur.
"We have the honor to be, dear sir, your obedient servants,
"Jefferson & Mackenzie,
"Managers of the Washington Theater."
FOOTNOTE:
[1] Submitted by Professor Walter Dyson.
Lee, Mass. April 23, 1917.
Carter G. Woodson,
Editor, Journal of Negro History,
Washington, D. C.Dear Sir:
The enclosed tracing of a manuscript in my possession may, or may not be of interest enough to publish in your magazine. The Ms. came into my hands in the autumn of 1863 while I was serving in the ranks of the 10th Mass. Inf. At that time the regiment was stationed at Bristoe Station, on the R. R. between Alexandria and Fredericksburg. A detail which had been sent to Prince William Court House at Brentsville for some purpose brought to our camp some manuscripts, among them that from which the tracing has been made, and which I thought of interest enough to preserve.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) D. M. Wilcox.
A Marriage Contract made this 12th day of January in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Fifty six Between John Brunskill of the Parish of Hamilton and County of Prince Willm Clerk, and Edward Humston of the above said Parish and County Witnesseth that the sd John—Brunskill doth Contract & agree with the said Humston, that he the said John Brunskill will have to his wife Ann Humston, daughter to the said Edward Humston and in Consideration of which the said Humston doth agree to & with the said Brunskill that he the said Humston will at the day of Marriage Lend unto the sd Ann Humston as a Maintenance during her life The Following Negroes, To wit, Jude, Lucy & three children John, Mary and Betty, and also one Negroe man named Tom, Jun. on proviso yt the said Brunskill doth pay unto ye said Humston ten pounds P Ann for four years in Consideration of the hire of the said Negroes, And at her ye said Ann Humstons death ye sd Negroes to fall to her Eldest son by the ye sd Brunskill but if she shou'd not have a son by the said Brunskill they are to fall Heir by the sd Brunskill they are to fall to her Eldest Daughter by the said Brunskill, but if she should die without Heir by the sd Brunskill they are at the Death of her and the said Brunskill to fall to the Heir at Law. And for the Performance of the above Contract. We do bind ourselves our heirs &c. Either to other in the Penal sum Of five hundred Pounds Sterlg. In witness whereof We have set our hands & seals the day and Year above Written—
Signed sealed and Deliver'd
in the Presence of—} Edward Humston (L.S.)
John Brunskill Junr (L.S.)Tho. Marshall
his
John X Warring
MarkAt a Court held for prince William County the 22. of March 1756 This Marriage Contract was proved by the oaths of the witnesses hereto & ordered to be recorded.
Test John Graham Clerk.
| Signed sealed and Deliver'd in the Presence of— | } |
Letters on Reconstruction Records
Tuskegee Institute, Alabama.
July 3, 1920.Dr. C. G. Woodson,
1216 U Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C.My Dear Dr. Woodson:
Attached are names of additional Negro members of the North and South Carolina legislatures and a letter from Mrs. M.E. Richardson about an additional member of the Alabama legislature. Attached also is a letter by Mr. John W. Cromwell. These should be published in the Journal. Kindly publish the same in the Journal, under documents and oblige,
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Monroe N. Work.
Monroe N. Work,
Editor, Negro Year Book.MNW/FEH
Three enclosures.
To the Editor of The Planet:
Will you for the sake of history allow this communication in your columns? It has been repeatedly charged that we have no racial history. If we are challenged with respect to certain events we admit the imputation by our silence. A different course would correct much error. The Journal of Negro History for January has rendered a very great service by publishing the names and number of Negroes who have been members of their respective State Legislatures since the Civil War reconstruction. It was interesting and informative to note the names and numbers of members of our race from these different States.
When it came to Virginia the contrast was most painful. To behold the absence of detailed information similar to that supplied the other States, from North Carolina to Florida, from the Atlantic to the Rio Grande. For a time I felt like disowning that Virginia was my native State. Finally the obligation incumbent on all those who have lived in Virginia during the last fifty years or familiar with its history asserted itself, hence I begin but I must acknowledge my sense of gratitude to Rev. G. F. Bragg, Jr., who in the current number of The Journal of Negro History has contributed from his recollection and given names of members whom he knew.
Peter J. Carter, Northampton George Teamoh, Norfolk County John Brown, Southhampton Peter G. Morgan, Petersburg John Watson, Mecklenburg Resa Hamilton, Jas. W. D. Bland, Prince Edward Frank Moss, Buckingham Caesar Perkins, Buckingham Willis A. Hodges, Princess Anne John Q. Hodges, Princess Anne Littleton Owens, Princess Anne John M. Dawson, James City John B. Syphax, Alexandria, Co. Robert D. Ruffin, Alexandria, Co. Miles Connor, Norfolk, Co. William H. Andrews, Surry Henry Cox, Powhatan Peter K. Jones, Greenville William P. Mosely, Goochland Rufus S. Jones, Hampton Daniel M. Norton, Yorktown Most of these are recollected by Professor Cromwell and those with the asterisk are furnished by others.
Robert Norton, Yorktown David Canady, Halifax John Freeman, Halifax Henry Clay Harris, Halifax John Robinson Cumberland John W. Poindexter, Louisa Alfred W. Harris, Robert G. L. Paige, Norfolk, Co. *Alexander Lee, Elizabeth City. *Robert M. Smith, Elizabeth City. *John H. Robinson, Elizabeth City. *James Fields, Warwick —— Lipscomb, Cumberland —— Matthews, Petersburg B. F. Jones, Charles City —— Lyons, Elizabeth City Rev. Mr. Bragg mentions those whom I do not recall:
Armstead Green, Petersburg Neverson Lewis, Powhatan Guy Powell, Brunswick Shed Dungee, Cumberland Batt Greggs, Prince Edward Archie Scott, Amelia and Nottoway J. R. Jones, Mecklenburg A. A. Dodson was another from Mecklenburg, a senator as I remember. I have a vague recollection that Tazewell Branch was at one time a member, also that Nansemond county sent a representative.
I make no claim to accuracy in every case, but unless there is specific contradiction I will claim these named as men who played an honorable though an humble part in framing the laws of the commonwealth which has given eight Presidents to our Republic. I will be glad to hear from any one who can give further information on this subject.
Respectfully yours
(Signed) J. W. Cromwell
1429 Swann St., N. W.
May 13, 1920.
| Peter J. Carter, | Northampton |
| George Teamoh, | Norfolk County |
| John Brown, | Southhampton |
| Peter G. Morgan, | Petersburg |
| John Watson, | Mecklenburg |
| Resa Hamilton, | |
| Jas. W. D. Bland, | Prince Edward |
| Frank Moss, | Buckingham |
| Caesar Perkins, | Buckingham |
| Willis A. Hodges, | Princess Anne |
| John Q. Hodges, | Princess Anne |
| Littleton Owens, | Princess Anne |
| John M. Dawson, | James City |
| John B. Syphax, | Alexandria, Co. |
| Robert D. Ruffin, | Alexandria, Co. |
| Miles Connor, | Norfolk, Co. |
| William H. Andrews, | Surry |
| Henry Cox, | Powhatan |
| Peter K. Jones, | Greenville |
| William P. Mosely, | Goochland |
| Rufus S. Jones, | Hampton |
| Daniel M. Norton, | Yorktown |
| Robert Norton, | Yorktown |
| David Canady, | Halifax |
| John Freeman, | Halifax |
| Henry Clay Harris, | Halifax |
| John Robinson | Cumberland |
| John W. Poindexter, | Louisa |
| Alfred W. Harris, | |
| Robert G. L. Paige, | Norfolk, Co. |
| *Alexander Lee, | Elizabeth City. |
| *Robert M. Smith, | Elizabeth City. |
| *John H. Robinson, | Elizabeth City. |
| *James Fields, | Warwick |
| —— Lipscomb, | Cumberland |
| —— Matthews, | Petersburg |
| B. F. Jones, | Charles City |
| —— Lyons, | Elizabeth City |
| Armstead Green, | Petersburg |
| Neverson Lewis, | Powhatan |
| Guy Powell, | Brunswick |
| Shed Dungee, | Cumberland |
| Batt Greggs, | Prince Edward |
| Archie Scott, | Amelia and Nottoway |
| J. R. Jones, | Mecklenburg |
Washington, D. C.
July 6, 1920.Dr. C. G. Woodson
Journal of Negro History.Sir:
In addition to the Negro members in the Virginia legislature mentioned in my letter published in the Richmond (Va.) Planet of June. There should be included,—
Rev. Ceasar Perkins, Buckingham " Fountaine M. Perkins, Louisa William P. Lucas, " Samuel P. Bolling, Cumberland. This makes the number forty-nine (49)
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) J. W. Cromwell.
| Rev. Ceasar Perkins, | Buckingham |
| " Fountaine M. Perkins, | Louisa |
| William P. Lucas, | " |
| Samuel P. Bolling, | Cumberland. |
Tuskegee Institute Alabama
May 13, 1920.Mr. M. N. Work,
Department Records and Research,
Tuskegee Institute, Alabama.Dear Mr. Work:
In looking through the last number of The Journal of Negro History, I note that you are asking for information concerning those Negroes who were members of the State Legislatures during reconstruction days, just following the Civil War.
I do not know if it has already been called to your attention or not, but my grandfather, Shandy Jones, was at that time a member of the Alabama Legislature. I do not know the year, but think I can get the dates for you if it is of interest to you.
His early life was spent in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He was a very successful business man, barber by trade. His later life was actively spent in church work. He was presiding elder in the A. M. E. Z. church and was nominated for bishop, but his age was an obstacle.
He lived in Mobile, Alabama at the time of his death at 70 years. He was still in the ministry at this time.
Very truly,
(Signed) Mrs. M. E. Richardson.
245 West 139th St.,
New York City,
July 22, 1920.Carter G. Woodson, Ph.D.,
Editor The Journal of Negro History,
1216 You St., N. W.,
Washington, D. C.Dear Sir:
You have presented the matter of the Reconstruction Period in splendid shape and no doubt it will be read with much interest especially by the few "old timers" who can recall those halcyon days.
There are some errors I would like to correct and a few additions I would like to make as it was not my intention to slight any person engaged in that laudable work of making Negro history, and I would like to know at your earliest convenience if there will be time before the July number goes to press. There is just one error I want to correct now and that is relative to myself. In the foot notes it is stated that I was a page in the House of Representatives in the Reconstruction Period. I do not know how Mr. Work made the error as there is nothing in my retained carbon copies to show that I gave him that information. It was my brother, Dr. J. E. Wallace, now with the Standard Insurance Company of Atlanta who occupied that position. I certainly would have preferred that job as it was more remunerative than the one I held. I was employed in the post office at Columbia, S. C., from March 1, 1871 to August 15, 1886, when I resigned under the democratic postmaster, Major W. H. Gibbes, notwithstanding the fact that he requested me to continue in the position. It was owing to my position that I came in contact with the prominent people from all over the State and was thus enabled to get much information that has helped me greatly in compiling the data. Handling the mail for several years of these Reconstructionists made me quite familiar with their names and as the impressions of youth are lasting they remained with me.
As I understand it the Reconstruction Period is from the close of the civil war to April 20, 1877, when the United States troops were withdrawn from the New Orleans, La., state house, the troops having been withdrawn from the state house in Columbia, S.C., April 10, 1877. Therefore data since then would not be considered as belonging to the Reconstruction Period.
Very Respectfully,
(Signed) Henry A. Wallace.
245 West 139th St.,
New York City,
August 6, 1920.Dr. Carter G. Woodson
1216 You St., N. W.,
Washington, D. C.Dear Sir:
In looking over the data published in the January number of The Journal of Negro History relative to the Reconstruction period in South Carolina I find several errors which I would be glad to have you correct in the next number:
Page 81—The christian name of Senator Bird is Israel.
Page 83—The initials of Fraser, representative from Colleton County are W. H.
Page 84—Aaron Logan was from Charleston county and Samuel P. Coker from Barnwell county.
Page 89—Opposite name of Joseph H. Rainey, strike out 46th, 47th and 48th and insert 43rd. See sketch on page 95.
Page 90—F. B. Perry should be B. F. Perry.
Page 97—under Robert C. DeLarge, should be 1868-1870 as a member of the House of Representatives.
Page 98—Under Francis L. Cardozo—four years as State Treasurer instead of two. See page 89.
Pages 103 and 104—A. Q. Jones should be A. O. Jones.
Page 104—countries should be counties.
Page 85—Jervay, Page 107—Jervay and Jarvey—should be Jervey.
Page 100—Under Thomas E. Miller—1866 should be 1886 as member of the S. C. House of Representatives.
Additional members of the Senate:
Jared Warley—Clarendon County Dublin I. Walker—Chester County J. L. Duncan—Orangeburg County Additional Members of the House of Representatives: Abbeville Co.—Everett Cain, H. A. Wideman, Aiken Co.—Gloster H. Holland, W. B. Jones Barnwell Co.—B. W. Middleton, E. M. Sumpter Charleston Co.—R. B. Artson, P. P. Hedges, J. J. Hardy, J. J. Grant, J. W. Lloyd, C. F. North, Lewis Simmons Chester Co.—Ceasar Simmons Colleton Co.—Sherman Smalls, R. S. Tarlton Edgefield Co.—David Graham, Augustus Simpkins Georgetown Co.—Charles H. Sperry Kershaw Co.—Frank Adamson Laurens Co.—James Young Marion Co.—William A. Hayne Marlboro Co.—Jacob Allman Newberry Co.—Isham Greenwood Orangeburg Co.—John Dix, Abram Dannerly, H. Reilly Sumter Co.—W. W. Ramsey, J. C. Wilson Williamsburg Co.—Fortune Giles, E. H. Gourdin, Thomas Pressley
Relative to Hon. J. H. Rainey I would state that he was the only Negro Congressman who presided over the U. S. House of Representatives. That courtesy was extended to him by Speaker James G. Blaine.
The following may be interesting in connection with Senator W. B. Nash:
"It is not too much to say that the leading man of the Republican party in the Senate is Beverly Nash, a man wholly black. He is apparently consulted more and appealed to more, in the business of the body, than any man in it. It is admitted by his white opposition colleagues that he has more native ability than half the white men in the State"
The Prostrate State—J. S. Pike.
"Beverley Nash of Columbia is probably the foremost Negro in the State. He has made many speeches, which, homely in manner, have, nevertheless, a subsoil of strong common sense. He has been employed by the Military authorities from time to time in aiding, by "moral suasion" to preserve peace; is about 45 years of age; was formerly a hotel servant in Columbia where he still resides. Some months ago, on the same platform with Gen. Wade Hampton and other distinguished citizens he made a speech to the colored people recommending qualified suffrage; but subsequently was obliged by high-pressure to recant, and to set himself right has since become intensely radical. His idea now is that the Negro is entitled to everything the white man enjoys—an opinion which has been encouraged by his appointment as magistrate, General Sickles having conferred the office upon him to punish the citizens of Columbia for an assault made by two intoxicated young men on a itinerant radical speaker and his traveling companion while in that town"
"Q" in New York Times—March 23, 1868.
The above would indicate that Senator W. Beverly Nash was the first Negro to exercise judicial power in the United States.
Concerning Associate Justice J. J. Wright I would add that he graduated from the Lancaster, Pa., High School—studied law at Montrose, Pa.,—admitted to the Bar in Susquehanna county, being the first Negro to practice law in Pennsylvania—four years before going to South Carolina.
Very respectfully,
Henry A. Wallace.
"It is not too much to say that the leading man of the Republican party in the Senate is Beverly Nash, a man wholly black. He is apparently consulted more and appealed to more, in the business of the body, than any man in it. It is admitted by his white opposition colleagues that he has more native ability than half the white men in the State"
The Prostrate State—J. S. Pike.
"Beverley Nash of Columbia is probably the foremost Negro in the State. He has made many speeches, which, homely in manner, have, nevertheless, a subsoil of strong common sense. He has been employed by the Military authorities from time to time in aiding, by "moral suasion" to preserve peace; is about 45 years of age; was formerly a hotel servant in Columbia where he still resides. Some months ago, on the same platform with Gen. Wade Hampton and other distinguished citizens he made a speech to the colored people recommending qualified suffrage; but subsequently was obliged by high-pressure to recant, and to set himself right has since become intensely radical. His idea now is that the Negro is entitled to everything the white man enjoys—an opinion which has been encouraged by his appointment as magistrate, General Sickles having conferred the office upon him to punish the citizens of Columbia for an assault made by two intoxicated young men on a itinerant radical speaker and his traveling companion while in that town"
"Q" in New York Times—March 23, 1868.
Washington, D. C., May 9, 1920.
Dear Mr. Woodson:
The Journal of Negro History is among the most valuable periodicals that it is my privilege to receive. I make it a rule to read all the articles of a purely historical nature.
Your recent effort to gather and print a list of the Negro officeholders of the reconstructive period is highly commendable, and should be aided by all persons possessing accurate or approximate facts on the subjects. There were numerous such holders of small offices, national, state, county and municipal, in the Southern states in that period. As a boy, I knew two such in the town and county in which I lived. Doubtless many other persons of 50 years or less know of several.
Mr. John W. Cromwell's articles in the April number, "The Aftermath of Nat Turner's Insurrection," is not only scholarly and interesting but a very valuable contribution to history.
There is a vast amount of fact reposing only in the memories of elderly people now living that should be rescued and recorded while they live, lest it is lost forever. Perhaps the record of it will not be history proper but only annals, or a record of events. It is none the less important to secure it. It is of minor importance whether it be written in polished literary form. It will constitute source matter for the future historian. For some time to come we shall be in less need of dissertations that are philosophy of Negro history than of accurate records of events—facts, facts, facts!
I have conversed with a number of elderly colored men and women in this city who have a wonderful fund of recollection of interesting and valuable historical data never in print. There are such people everywhere. Some cannot write, others will not write. If discriminating chroniclers are encouraged to write down the stories of such people for publication in your Journal, the result should be fruitful.
I congratulate you on the average excellence of the subjects covered by the Journal and the scholarly editing thereof.
Yours very sincerely,
(Signed) R. C. Edmonson.
Dr. Carter G. Woodson,
Editor, Journal of Negro History.
SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES
Fred Fowler
Fred Fowler was born about 1832 in Frederick County, Maryland. His first master, Michael Reel, had a farm and a flour mill about four miles from Frederick City. Reel owned sixteen slaves, among whom were Fred's mother and her eight children. Fred's father belonged to a man named Doyle, who had an adjoining farm. Doyle sold the father to a man named Fisher, who subsequently put up the first gas factory in Frederick.
On the death of Michael Reel, in 1847, his estate had to be divided. Some of the slaves were disposed of according to appraisement, others at auction. Fred, then about fifteen years old, was taken at the appraised value of $400 by a son of the deceased Reel. If auctioned off, he thought he might have brought somewhat more.
At this sale his mother and one child were bought for $500 by a man named Todd, who subsequently sold her to Dr. Shipley. Four children were purchased by men supposed to be traders, who presumably took them to Georgia, which, according to the sentiment of "Nellie Gray," was the slave's notion of some far-away place where the speculators found a market. No one of these four was ever seen or heard from after they were put on the train for Baltimore. The other children, two sisters, were taken away by a man named Roach, but that was all that was then known. The almost invariable rule in the inter-state slave-trade was that separation ended all communication with those left behind. In 1887—forty years after the sale—these sisters wrote a letter to a colored church in Frederick asking for information about the slaves that belonged to the Reel family. Someone in the church knew that Fred Fowler was living in Washington, D.C. The letter was forwarded to him and from it he learned that these sisters had been taken to Columbia, Tennessee and were still living. A meeting soon followed.
When Fred was twenty years old, young Reel, who was about to move to Springfield, Illinois, sold him privately for $1,000 to Dr. Willis who lived in New Market, Frederick County, Maryland. That was a high price for the time and place. Fowler was with Dr. Willis for three or four years as a farmhand. The Doctor was the physician for the notorious inter-state slave traders B. M. and W. L. Campbell. They had a large jail in Baltimore for their purchases in Maryland. In New Orleans they had another, where most of their sales were made. The Doctor went to Baltimore once or twice a week to examine and prescribe for the Campbell slaves. In the farming season, when there was need of extra labor, he would bring some of them out to work for him.
Mrs. Salmon, a Quaker, told Fowler that Dr. Willis contemplated selling him the following winter, probably because some less valuable slave could do the work. All slaves dreaded being sold, for, if young and strong, it usually meant being "sold South." So in the spring of 1858 Fowler made up his mind to run away. He and another slave started one Saturday night and safely walked to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania by the early morning.
Promptly on Monday Dr. Willis issued a handbill offering $200 reward for the recovery of his runaway. Fowler knew no details of this until perhaps thirty or forty years later, when a son of Dr. Willis gave him one of the handbills. It was shown about 1905 to the present writer who had it carefully typewritten as to the lines and capitalization, but the size of the letters could not be reproduced. The original was duly returned to Fowler, but unfortunately he subsequently lost or mislaid it. It was tiny for a handbill—only about six inches long and four inches wide and was worded and lined thus:—
"$200 REWARD!
Ranaway from the subscriber, living at New Market, Frederick Co., Md., On Saturday Night, the 8th. of May inst., a Negro Man, named Fred Fowler, aged about 26 years, five feet ten or eleven inches high, stout made, dark copper color, round full eye, upper teeth full and even, has a down look when spoken to, lisps slightly in his speech, and has small hands; no other marks recollected. Had on when he left, dark pants and coat and light-made shoes.
The above reward will be given for the arrest of said Negro, if taken out of the State of Maryland, and his delivery to the subscriber; or one hundred dollars, if taken in the State, and secured in jail.
Dr. W. L. Willis.
New Market, Md., May 10, 1858."
The same wording long appeared as an advertisement in the Baltimore Sun. Both were all in vain.
A free Negro, associated with the underground railroad in Pennsylvania and working as a mason for a company of men who built large barns in Maryland, had told Fowler to report in Gettysburg to a man by the name of Mathers. The runaways did so and were concealed until the next night. They then walked to Carlisle, Pennsylvania. There they remained that day. During the night they went on to Harrisburg. Some Abolitionists took charge of them and put them on a farm about eight miles from town. In August, they proceeded to Bradford, Canada West. There Fowler found an aunt who had run away with a party of twelve, many years before. He worked on a farm until May, 1862, when he went to the American Hotel in Lockport, New York to become a waiter. In August, 1863 he left for Hartford, Connecticut, to enlist in the 29th Regiment of Connecticut Colored Volunteers. The regiment was turned over to the Government in March, 1864, and was then taken by boat from Hartford to Annapolis Maryland, and there transhipped to Beaufort, South Carolina.
At Beaufort they had a few little skirmishes. Once they were about surrounded by the Confederates for five days, and were without food a part of the time. The Confederates were between Beaufort and Hilton Head, but did not know to what disadvantage they had the colored regiment.
In the summer of 1864 the regiment was moved to Bermuda Hundred, Virginia. On the day of landing they took part in an engagement at Malvern Hill. They were in several skirmishes and were finally attacked at Strawberry Plains. From there they were taken to the Weldon railway, for the purpose of cutting off the southern connection with Richmond. They fought there three days and tore up the track. To make the rails useless they were heated red-hot and twisted around trees. Later, the regiment was taken back to the neighborhood of Fort Harrison, on which they made an attack. After a few weeks they took the Fort and remained there all winter and until a few days before the fall of Richmond.
Early in April, 1865, on a Sunday afternoon the troops in Fort Harrison saw a large mass of Confederates marching in plain view in front of them. "We thought there must be a million of them marching there!" It was supposed that the Confederates intended soon to attack Fort Harrison. The occupants of the Fort sent out videttes so as to give the earliest possible notice of it. Those in the Fort made every preparation for resistence. But there was no attack. That night three unarmed Confederates came to the videttes and reported that there were no troops in front; that the Confederate lines had long been very thin and that the Federals could march right into Richmond.
This was found to be true, for on the following day the Union troops started for the Confederate capitol. Fowler's regiment reached there on the morning of the fall and went to State House Hill, but camped close to Libby prison, down near the river. A few days later—a day or two before Lincoln was shot—they left Richmond for City Point, where they first heard of his death. From there they were taken to Point Lookout, Maryland, to aid in the search for Booth. After Booth was captured, the regiment returned to City Point, and a week later was ordered to Brownsville, Texas, for the special purpose of getting the supplies,—a great collection of cotton, wagons and all sorts of munitions—that General Kirby Smith had tried to take to Mexico. The regiment remained there until the 15th day of October, when Fowler and the others were mustered out of the United States service.
In the spring of 1876 he was appointed a messenger in the Library of Congress, which was then and until about 1900 in the Capitol just west of the great dome. He was a strong willing worker. Doctor Spofford relied on him to find and bring forth from dark and dusty storerooms the files of old newspapers when needed for historical purposes. By the time that the magnificent Library of Congress building was completed and things were in shipshape, Fowler had reached an age when he was entitled to and given less heavy work.
For nearly twenty years he was daily at the door of the Reading Room to admit readers and to refer sightseers to the gallery for the best view of the grand and beautiful rotunda. He was always so cheerful and polite that it gave one pleasure to see and exchange greetings with him. His remarkable and most honorable career caused him to be regarded with much wonder by persons of the young generation, especially if from the North. By the whole staff of the Library and by the many research workers that daily came there, he was regarded with a fondness such as was felt toward no one else.
He died October 9, 1919, at the advanced age of about 87 and was buried in the great National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. There his grave and name can be seen among those of men who fought to preserve the Union, and in doing so destroyed slavery—the "sacred institution" of the old South and "the corner-stone" of the short-lived Confederacy. Fred Fowler served his race and his country well and he was well rewarded.
F. B.
Some observations on the death of Rachel Parker.
On the 21st of February 1918 the Oxford Press carried the following:
The death on Monday in Oxford of Rachel Parker Wesley, an aged colored woman, recalls an incident of the slavery times previous to the War of the Rebellion, in which Rachel was a principal figure. The question of slavery was paramount then, and later became one of the burning issues of the war. Maryland was a slave State, and an ablebodied negro man was worth in the slave market as much as $1400, while a girl often brought $1000. Frequently negroes were taken from the free State of Pennsylvania across into Maryland, where they might be sold.
Rachel Parker lived at the time with the family of Joseph Miller, on the farm in West Nottingham now owned by S. S. Boyd.
It was on the last day of December, 1850, that she was kidnapped from this home by three men, Thomas McCrery, John Merritt and George Alexander, the latter figuring as the driver of the wagon. It was about 11 o'clock in the morning.
The team took a road, now vacated, that led to old Pine Grove school house. They found the road blocked by the wagon of James Pollock, and his son Samuel, who were loading wood. On demand that the wagon be removed so that they could pass at once, James Pollock refused, and when McCrery drew a sword he brandished his axe.
The kidnappers then turned and made their way to Nottingham, and by way of Stubbs' Mill, Chrome and Calvert, proceeded to Perryville, from which point they entrained for Baltimore.
When the capture of Rachel Parker became known there was considerable excitement in the community. Rachel was born of free parents and that she had been carried away into possible slavery was too much for the sturdy abolitionists of that day.
A party of eight was organized to go in pursuit. They were Joseph Miller, William Morris, Samuel Pollock, Lewis Melrath, Jesse B. Kirk, Abner B. Richardson, Benjamin Furniss, H. G. Coates.
These men went to Perryville and that night took a train for Baltimore. They went to a house of detention or slave pen in that city where runaway slaves were kept. While they were there McCrery appeared with Rachel Parker in a wagon.
The Pennsylvanians protested that the girl was not a slave, but was free, and the authorities ordered that she be held and given a trial.
The Pennsylvanians met an acquaintance named Francis Cochran, who resided in Baltimore. When he learned their errand he told them they were in mortal danger, and advised them to get at once on a train and not leave it until they arrived at Perryville.
Joseph Miller left the car, or the train, and was not seen again by his friends, although search was made for him. His body was found some hours afterwards, hanging in a woods near Stemmer's Run. Just how he met his death is a mystery that never was made clear. It was claimed at the time that investigation proved that Miller was dead before his body was hanged to the tree, and that he had been poisoned.
Rachel Parker was gone more than 14 months, most of that time locked up in Baltimore. Her trial was postponed from time to time.
It was claimed in Baltimore that Rachel Parker was a member of a family named Crocus, and that they were runaway slaves. In an effort to prove this, people were sent to this neighborhood to try to identify other members of the Parker family as in reality belonging to the Crocus family. The attorney who ably defended Rachel Parker was Lloyd Norris. She was acquitted, and she is said to have been the only person so freed in a slave State.
For more than 40 years Rachel lived with the Coates family, near Glenroy. To Granville Coates, Sr., The Press is indebted for the details of the affair, which are from records which he has faithfully preserved.
On the 28th of February, 1918 the Oxford Press carried the following:
The account of the death in Oxford of Rachel Parker Wesley, an aged colored woman, in last week's Oxford Press, has been closely read. Some older citizens, in town and country, recall the circumstances and the high excitement that prevailed at the time Rachel Parker, then a girl, was kidnapped.
Of all the men who desired that justice be done Rachel Parker, who was kidnapped by Thomas McCrery and others on the last day of 1851, from the home of Joseph C. Miller, West Nottingham, township, not one took deeper and more determined interest in the matter than the late Dr. John Miller Dickey of Oxford. He became a leader in the affair and repeatedly went to Baltimore, where Rachel was in jail, and got a number of the most influential citizens of Baltimore interested to have justice brought about. The late Levi K. Brown of Lancaster county was also active in the matter and rendered much valuable assistance.
The matter had now become so generally known that effectual help was received from the late Senator Henry S. Evans, West Chester, who brought the circumstances to the attention of our Legislature, by which means the case became a State affair.
Dr. Dickey and others attended the trial in January, 1853. The proceedings lasted eight days, during which, as one of the claimant's attorneys expressed it, "an entire neighborhood" appeared and "an avalanche of testimony" was borne to the girl's free birth. Evidence was produced from Baltimore that she was not the girl who had been lost. Forty-nine witnesses were heard and many more were ready when a compromise was proposed and agreed to. Notwithstanding this overwhelming evidence, there was still some fear that a Baltimore jury would decide against the girl, and it was thought wise to give way. The chief end was gained: Rachel Parker was declared free born; the same jury gave a verdict also for her sister Elizabeth who had been found in New Orleans and brought North, and the two were restored to their mother.
The costs of the trial were divided, these amounting to $1000, besides $3000 expended by the State of Pennsylvania and heavy outlays by friendly citizens of Baltimore and Chester County.
Judge Bell of West Chester, one of the Pennsylvania counsel, wrote thus after all was over to the West Chester Republican and Democrat:
"Too much praise cannot be accorded to the host of witnesses from Chester County and the neighboring districts, who promptly on the call of justice and humanity, exchanged the comforts of home for the inconvenience and supposed dangers of sojourn in a strange city, under circumstances well calculated to deter a merely selfish person from obeying the summons. This praise is peculiarly due to the numerous ladies of our county whose sense of right overcame every merely personal consideration."
The "supposed dangers" referred to, of which the murder of Joseph C. Miller was a sign, were realized by Dr. Dickey, who his son, the late J. M. C. Dickey, Esq., told, "would go to trial in Baltimore, not knowing how he would come back. Once he was very near death at their hands."
The concluding local action of this case of wide agitation was as follows:
West Nottingham, Jan. 17, 1853.
At a meeting of the witnesses and others who attended the Court of Baltimore county, in the case of the girls, Rachel and Elizabeth Parker, the following was passed:
"Whereas, By the blessings of Divine Providence, the two girls Rachel and Elizabeth Parker, have been restored to the State of Pennsylvania, where they were threatened, by a lawless and unjust removal; and whereas, similar cases are likely to occur, and in the excited state of public opinion on the subject of Slavery, both in the Northern and Southern States, difficulties exist in the way of the administration of law and justice where colored persons are petitioning for their freedom, we regard it as a duty we owe to those who may be engaged in similar prosecutions, as well as to those who have mainly aided in obtaining success in this case to put upon record the following resolutions:
"That we regard with great satisfaction the conduct of the Executive of our State, who, at the suggestion of the Senator and Representatives of our county, assumed the control and responsibilities of the trial; and that we tender our sincere thanks to the distinguished counsel, Attorney-General Campbell and Judge Bell, who visited at different times this place to become familiar with and to give encouragement to the witnesses to about to testify in another State, thus accomplishing the object as well by their urbanity as well as by their professional skill.
"That we express our sincere acknowledgement of the courtesy shown us by the Court of Baltimore county, both by the bench and bar and especially to Wm. H. Norris, Esq., for his invaluable services, associated as counsel with those from our own State.
"That we deplore the death of Joseph C. Miller, a witness in the first trial before the magistrate's court, and believing, as we most positively do, that he came to his death violently by other hands than his own, we implore the Executive to offer a suitable reward, in addition to that offered by his friends, for the discovery and apprehension of his murderers.
John M. Dickey,
Chairman."
Hugh Rowland, Secretary.
It may be added that the Grand Jury of Chester county brought in a true bill against Thomas McCrery and Merritt, his associate, for kidnapping. But Governor Lowe of Maryland refused the requisition for apprehension and delivery, going behind the record, contrary to the law, as Governor Bigler of Pennsylvania demonstrated clearly in the published correspondence.
Some Ohio Negro Pioneers
In 1835 some of the earnest free colored people of Virginia were interested in reports of the great opportunities for colored folk in the State of Ohio, so often called the Buckeye State. At that time there were no railroads from the slave State Virginia to Ohio, a free State. But the determined freemen and their families undeterred by this drawback went forth in covered wagon trains.
One of the earlier groups of pioneers consisted of several families from and near Richmond Virginia; namely, Abraham Depp and his wife Mary Goode-Depp, Elias Litchford, James Poindexter, and Archer Goode, with their families, and Samuel Willis Whyte accompanied by his son bearing the same name, all of whom settled in central Ohio, not far from Columbus. Abraham Depp purchased five or six hundred acres, south of Delaware; Litchford about the same number of acres nearer Columbus; the elder Whyte, being a mechanic, purchased only about two hundred acres. Samuel W. Whyte Jr. later left his trade for the profession of medicine and became noted as a specialist of chronic diseases. Dr. Samuel Whyte married Miss Louisa Goode, daughter of Archer Goode. She was of a peculiar sweet disposition, a model companion, and a loving earnest mother. She as often called Saint Louisa by those who knew her best. She died in 1905.
The Doctor always kept in touch with the leading thoughts and achievements of his day. He was a brilliant scholar, a great logician, with a keen wit, having a dash of eccentricity throughout; in fact, he was a born philosopher, and a man of many parts. He was educated for missionary work to Liberia, but he remained at home and became one of the landmarks of Central Ohio in politics and medicine. He was born in 1815 and died in 1902, when, as it happened in the case of his wife whom he survived seven years, he was borne to his final resting place from the home where he had lived since 1835. Dr. Whyte and his wife had a large family of whom the writer, H. Georgiana Whyte, alone bears the family name. The old homestead is retained by the descendents.
All through Ohio settled many such high minded, thoroughgoing Christian Negro families that helped to build up Ohio and left large families, of worthy descendants. Of this pioneer group one of the most prominent characters was James Poindexter, who sold his farm of forty acres and went to Columbus, Ohio to live. He was a playmate and always an ardent friend of Dr. Samuel Willis Whyte, Jr. There James Poindexter became a Baptist minister and during later years became one of the foremost citizens of Columbus, having become a member of the city council and for over forty years served as pastor of the most prominent Baptist church in the city. He was in great demand as an orator before and after the Civil War. He lived to a ripe old age.
H. Georgiana Whyte.
The Alexanders
Henry Alexander a mulatto who lived at Mayslick, Kentucky, and who purchased his freedom when twenty-one years of age, sent his two oldest daughters to school in Philadelphia as early as 1846. He was a store-keeper and grain merchant. In the fifties he sent three younger ones to Oberlin, Ohio where Louisa Alexander was graduated in 1862. She and her older sister Rachel taught in the South during the Reconstruction period and had many thrilling experiences. In several instances their schools were closed and they were given so many hours to leave town. Maria Ann, who went to school in Philadelphia, taught a while in Covington, Kentucky, strange as it may seem, before the war. She was later married to the late Judge Mifflin W. Gibbs, an unflinching advocate of human rights.
Q. G. H.
BOOK REVIEWS
The Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter, 1826-1876, Volume II. Edited by Charles Henry Ambler. Washington, 1918. Pp. 381.
This comprises the twelfth report of the Historical Manuscript Commission and is published as the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1916. The contents are a callendar of papers and addresses by Robert M. T. Hunter heretofore printed, a callendar of letters to and from him printed in this volume, and the correspondence of the statesman. The work of the author appears to be more of that of a collector than that of an editor, for the volume has very little annotation. In the short preface the author undertakes to give the place of Robert M. T. Hunter in the history of his State and of the nation and to evaluate his correspondence. The excuse for such a short sketch is that Robert M. T. Hunter did not stand out as a great statesman himself but owes his importance to following the leadership of John C. Calhoun, and the period in which he lived was one of declining influence for his State and later one of civil strife between the great sections of the nation. Although he served the public almost continuously during the period of thirty years he held only a few positions of trust, most of his service being in the United States Senate.
These letters, as a whole, are unusually valuable in that they throw light on various problems perplexing the country during this critical period of American history between the year 1826 and 1876. Students of Negro history will be primarily interested in the letters in which we find mention of the African trade with Brazil, his speeches on slavery, on the fight for Missouri and Kansas, and on the abolition movement. His correspondence shows, moreover, what he thought about the extension of slavery, the stealing of slaves, legislation regarding the institution, and the power of Congress in the territories. There are references to the Compromise of 1850, the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, the struggle in Kansas, and the demands of the South in the great crisis. The space which he gives to the opinions and the doctrines advanced by Stephen A. Douglas, the rights of the slave States in the territories, the attitude of Seward, and the election of 1860 is considerable.
As Robert M. T. Hunter lived to see the Reconstruction worked out, it is interesting to note his attitude on the part he felt that the Negro should play in it. He did not believe that the elevation of the Negro to the status of citizenship with the right to vote or hold office would be good for this country. He referred frequently to the experience of Negro governments in Haiti and Jamaica to support his theory. He felt that it would result in the formation of the black man's party which would persecute the white man and the Negro control of affairs would result in the destruction of all the elements of material prosperity and moral progress. He believed that, as it happened in these islands, the black man's party would so persecute the whites that they would be driven from the country, just as the Haitians had persecuted the whites and made it illegal for them to hold real estate in the island. Even if the Negroes did get control of the Southern States and persecute the whites in the way that he suspected that they would, it would only be a matter of time before the North would rise up against the blacks thus exalted and overthrow them. Hunter disclaimed any hostility toward the Negroes but insisted that their welfare was to be promoted in a way that was contrary to their own future plans.
Finding a Way Out. By Robert Russa Moton, An Autobiography. Doubleday, Page and Company, New York, 1920. Pp. 295.
This story, according to the author, was written because of the repeated and urgent solicitation of those of his friends believing that such a story would serve an essential purpose in helping to a clearer understanding of the hopes and aspirations of the Negro and the difficulties which they have had to overcome. The author has endeavored to record these events which have given character and color to his life and at the same time to reflect the impressions made upon his mind by experiences that he could not always reconcile with what he had learned of American ideals and standards.
The story begins with an interesting account of the coming of the ancestors of Dr. Moton out of Africa to serve in the new world. There is a short sketch of early life on the Virginia plantation where his parents first connected themselves with America, covering the boy-hood, early training and first impressions of the author of this work. The chapter treating of the Reconstruction period, when as a youth the author was seeking an education and had to withstand the temptation of being drawn into the inviting political world of these days of a seeming golden age, adds increasing interest. Following this there appears an account of his career at Hampton in the connection with General Armstrong as an outstanding figure of inspiration and love. How the author at the close of his student days solved the problem of the choice of a life work and became a leader among the black, the white, and the red, brings the reader to the consideration of actual achievement. Serving Hampton as a representative travelling through the North and the South, Dr. Moton found his way into larger fields of usefulness by touching the life of the Negro in all of its ramifications.
The close connection between Dr. Moton and Dr. Booker T. Washington whom he succeeded, is made the important feature of the book. The comradeship of these two men and their cooperation in a common cause stand out as eloquent facts leading the way to the choice of Dr. Moton as the successor of his great friend at Tuskegee. In this he states how he has taken up this unusually hard task and solved the problems which have come his way. The calls upon him for service in other fields requiring his time in all matters touching the uplift of the Negro race show an enlarging usefulness of the man. Among these efforts may be mentioned the work in connection with the National Urban League, the Young Men's Christian Association, the war work movements, and his mission to the colored soldiers in France after the war. On the whole, this story of the direct descendant of an African brought to a tobacco plantation and finally rising to a position of usefulness and honor, is of much value. It not only throws light on the history of that group of which he formed a part in a State considered one of the most important in the Union, but served also as a striking example of the ability of the Negro in spite of all of the handicaps against which he must struggle.
Unwritten History. By Bishop L. J. Coppin. The A. M. E. Book Concern, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1920. Pp. 375.
Here we have under this peculiar caption the auto-biography of a man who for a number of years has figured very largely in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. In his preface he says that, intermingled with this unwritten history, is the story of his life. He frankly states that it is all from memory with the exception of a number of verifications. The effort toward a thorough biography has not been the objective of the author, for as he states he has merely written down those things that impressed him most and facts that seem to him the most significant among the things to be noted.
The work begins with an account of his birth and boyhood in Frederick Town on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where Frederick Douglas was born. There is much information about the life of Frederick Town referring to particular places along the rivers and bays and various persons who figured in the life of these people. Bishop Coppin directs attention to the social, moral and intellectual condition of the State at the time of his birth, giving full account of the religious atmosphere in which he lived and the particular strivings of his oppressed people.
Leaving this phase of the story one finds the book more interesting in that part discussing the events leading up to the Civil War and the rôle which the Negroes played in that drama. The sketch of the situation after the Civil War is equally well set forth because of the increasing power of the author during this period to appreciate and participate in the larger things which concerned the Negro people. His call to the ministry, service in various fields and the election to the bishopric add further interest to the story. How in his travels in this country and abroad men and things impressed him, constitute another value of the autobiography. The book closes with a chapter giving a view of the domestic life of Bishop Coppin, making honorable mention of his family.
For the popular reader this book may appear to be distinctly rough in style and certain details may prove to be tiresome in that the author omitted a good many things that some persons might want to learn and drifted into those things which, by the average reader, may not be considered worth while. On the whole, however, the scientific student will find this autobiography just what it is entitled, Unwritten History. Here is an opportunity to learn of the struggles of a Negro during the period of great handicap and to understand his reaction to what was going on in the world about him. It will be from such biographies that some one in the future will have to write an actual history of the Negro race to set forth exactly what this group has thought and felt and done. A book of this sort, therefore, must have a value. It is to be hoped that other distinguished churchmen and Negroes who have thus touched the life of the race will emulate the example of Bishop Coppin in leaving a written record.
Negro Migration during the War. By Emmett J. Scott, Secretary-Treasurer of Howard University. Oxford University Press, New York, 1920. Pp. 189.
Under the imprint of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Editorship of Professor Kinley, Mr. Emmett J. Scott has brought out a monograph study of Negro Migration during the War, based upon the careful and wisely distributed observation and records of several collaborative agents and agencies. The subject is of too great and too immediate economic and social importance to have waited for the final interpretation as to results or the finer analysis as to causes which must ultimately be given it. The entire series, in fact, modestly styles itself a series of preliminary economic studies; and as such, Volume XVI presents a sanely proportioned, clearly expounded, and systematic survey of the vital and outstanding facts of one of the most significant movements in the recent economic life of America.
Profounder consequences may ensue from this movement of the Negro population, which, though started by war conditions, has by no means halted with the war, than can be realized on superficial observation. In this light, Mr. Scott's diagnosis is as important as his chronicle of the facts. The reaction of the Negro masses away from untoward and repressing social conditions and their awakening to the simple but effective expedient of carrying their labor to better markets, are the significantly new features of the after-war aspects of the Negro problem. Economic adjustment, in most respects automatic—and fortunately so—would be the controlling factor were there not considerable evidence to show that the efficient causes of the movement are social. In which case, as the concluding chapter suggests, better living conditions, a more liberal social attitude, improved interracial feeling will prove to be the only stabilizing remedy. That the South has awakened to the realization of this, and is about to apply to the situation more constructive and well-intentioned effort than hitherto, is the confident belief and optimistic message of the writer.
Reactions and effects of the Exodus upon northern community conditions have not been gone into as thoroughly as the reactions upon conditions in the South; though there is evidence pointing on the whole to salutary effects in both sections. Certainly the study serves to call timely attention without undue alarmist effect to very momentous changes, and should be read by every alert, public-minded citizen.
In such delicate issues, however, facts outweigh opinions. Mr. Scott has wisely struck the balance in favor of a dispassionate recital of facts. It is a positive gain and welcome change of tone in the recent discussion of racial issues to note in this study, as in Carl Sandburg's Chicago Riots, the growing tendency to be objective and to leave conclusions to the intelligence of one's readers. Indeed, since it is facts that are of paramount interest, it is regrettable that, with the great resources of the foundation, more explicit statistics concerning the movement could not have been compiled. It is this aspect of the subject which in consequence calls for further treatment. Without the scientific pretensions, therefore, of Mr. Epstein's intensive study of the Negro migrant or Dr. Woodson's historical survey, the book, as a capable popular treatment of the public questions and social issues involved in the recent migration of the Negro population, serves its own distinctive purpose, and achieves a measure of real public service.
Alain Locke.
NOTES
On the 18th and 19th of November the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History will hold its annual meeting in Washington. This will be a convocation of teachers and scholars throughout the United States, now giving attention to research and instruction in this field. The management of the Association is endeavoring to make this meeting one of the most representative ever assembled.
The purpose of the meeting is to promote the collection of sociological and historical documents, to stimulate studies in this field through clubs and schools, and finally to bring about more harmony between the races by interpreting the one to the other.
The reports of the work accomplished by the Association during the past year will be made, further plans for the more successful prosecution of the work will be devised and a number of instructive addresses will be delivered by some of the most distinguished men of the country.
Among the speakers will be A. B. Hart, Professor of History at Harvard University, Franz Boas, Professor of Ethnology at Columbia University, L. Hollingsworth Wood, President of the Urban League, and Oswald Garrison Villard, the Editor of the Nation. These addresses will cover almost every phase of Negro life and history.
Three important works bearing on the Negro have recently come from the press. Among these are The Voice of the Negro, by Robert T. Kerlin, Professor of English, Virginia Military Institute, published by E. P. Dutton and Company, New York; The Negro Faces America, by Herbert J. Seligman, formerly a member of the editorial staff of the New York Evening Times and the New Republic, published by Harper and Brothers, New York; and the Republic of Liberia, being a general description of the Negro republic with its history, commerce, agriculture, flora and fauna, and present methods of administration, by R. C. F. Maugham, Consul General at Monrovia, published by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Reviews of these books will appear in the next number of the Journal of Negro History.
The United States in Our Times, 1865-1920, by Paul L. Haworth, is the title of a work recently brought out by Charles Scribner's Sons. Covering the period during which the Negroes have had a chance to play a part in freedom, it contains some information and comment which will be mentioned in this publication.
During the academic year 1920-1921 Dr. C. G. Woodson will, in the capacity of Dean, reorganize the College Department of the West Virginia Collegiate Institute. He will endeavor to finish this work during one or two years, at the expiration of which he plans to devote all of his time to research and publication. This new task of the Director will not necessitate any change in the management of the Journal of Negro History. The editorial office will remain in Washington as formerly.
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 noted the following issues and made changes as indicated to the text to correct obvious errors:
1. p. 6, Duplicate footnote markers for footnote #20
2. p. 30, beseiged --> besieged
3. p. 60, heriditary --> hereditary
4. p. 67, Duplicate footnote markers for footnote #6
5. p. 68, not the case. --> not the case."
6. p. 70, No footnote marker for footnote #9.
7. p. 71, Multiple footnote markers for footnote #10
8. p. 71,72, Multiple footnote markers for footnote #11
9. p. 72,73, Multiple footnote markers for footnote #12
10. p. 76, No footnote marker for footnote #14.
11. p. 82, No footnote marker for footnote #21.
12. p. 89, Convenion --> Convention
13. p. 104, Gleaves --> Gleaves,
14. p. 104, Thomas --> Thomas,
15. p. 115, Misisssippi --> Mississippi
16. p. 121, goverenment --> government
17. p. 124, He said: There --> He said: "There
18. p. 184, chieflly --> chiefly
19. p. 187, esitmate --> estimate
20. p. 194, serivce --> service
21. p. 223, Footnote #30, Drewery -->Drewry
22. p. 243, Leglistature --> Legislature
23. p. 263, Signé) --> (Signé)
24. p. 273, Footnote #5, Loftt --> Lofft
25. p. 273, Footnote #10, Holdworth's --> Holdsworth's
26. p. 276, Longueil --> Longueuil
27. p. 277, Two footnote markers #15 are found on page 277. As
footnote #15 appears on the previous page, the ones on
page 277 have been numbered #16 to match footnote text.
28. p. 280, Duplicate footnote markers for footnote #18
29. p. 280, Duplicate footnote markers for footnote #19
30. p. 285, Duplicate footnote markers for footnote #27
31. p. 286, Footnote #30, wha --> who
32. p. 289, attenton --> attention
33. p. 289,290 Page contains footnote #37 text only.
34. p. 295, Januaray --> January
35. p. 295, No footnote marker for footnote #9.
36. p. 302, behvaiour --> behaviour
37. p. 303, Gabette --> Gazette
38. p. 309, goal --> gaol
39. p. 318, No footnote marker for footnote #5.
40. p. 326, Footnote #16, Mich. Hist. Coll. 1 --> Mich. Hist. Coll. I
41. p. 330, No footnote marker for footnote #28.
42. p. 332, Footnote #34 has missing page number.
43. p. 332, Removed reference to itself in footnote #39.
44. p. 332, Signé) --> (Signé)
45. p. 337, Footnote #40, Roght --> Right
46. p. 337, Removed reference to itself in footnote #46.
47. p. 338, Footnote text has no number or marker. Used #46a.
48. p. 343, Footnote #8 has missing page number.
49. p. 346, Executive Council --> Executive Council)
50. p. 352, crimes is --> crimes in
51. p. 358, Page contains footnote #31 text only.
52. p. 361, Footnote #4, George 111 --> George III
53. p. 361, Footnote #5 has missing page number.
54. p. 367, mainfested --> manifested
55. p. 368, Footnote #13, babendo --> habendo
56. p. 370, Footnote #16 has missing page number.
57. p. 382, Jouranl --> Journal
58. p. 409, acquiesed --> acquiesced
59. p. 410, Cockrane --> Cochrane
60. p. 411, Original says November 22, 1914.
61. p. 435, therefor --> therefore
62. p. 444, No footnote marker for footnote #9.
63. p. 456, de-departed --> departed
64. p. 459, lieutenant-governnorship --> lieutenant-governorship
65. p. 464, it it not? --> is it not?
66. p. 469, (Signed --> (Signed)
67. p. 484, arces --> acres
68. p. 484, Secreary --> Secretary
69. p. 485, Philadlphia --> Philadelphia
70. p. 487, pupose --> purpose
71. p. 491, regretable --> regrettable
Also, many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes remain as published.