The Journal of Negro History, Volume 7, 1922

by Various

Vol. VII—July, 1922—No. 3

---

THE ANDERSON FUGITIVE CASE

The recent decision of the Canadian government not to allow deportation to proceed in the case of Matthew Bullock, a Negro whose return was asked by the State of North Carolina, has served to recall to public attention in Canada certain cases occurring during the period of slavery in the United States when the Canadian courts were asked to order the return of fugitives. The most famous of these was the Anderson case tried before the Canadian courts at Toronto, in 1860, interest in which stirred the British provinces from end to end.

The Bullock case, recently decided, has some points of similarity to the Anderson case, though the circumstances vary greatly. Bullock was charged with participation in race riots in North Carolina in January 1921. He had made his way to Canada and succeeded in evading the immigration authorities in entering the country. It was admitted by the Canadian authorities that he was in the country illegally but in the final decision it was stated that, as he had conducted himself in an exemplary manner since entering, he would be allowed to remain. On behalf of the fugitive it was freely hinted that should he be returned to North Carolina he would risk being a victim of mob justice. While this plea doubtless influenced the Canadian immigration authorities, it could not, of course, be stated as their reason for allowing the man his freedom.

The Anderson case of 1860, to which so much newspaper reference was made during the progress of the Bullock case, came just on the eve of the American Civil War. In some respects it looked to be one of the last efforts of the slave-owners to secure complete enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. That measure, so detested by the North, became a dead letter in many sections by the force of public opinion but was also weakened by the fact that the fugitive in the North could soon cross into Canada, if threatened by any sudden enforcement of the law. An arrest under the Fugitive Slave Law in any northern city was usually followed by a swift trek into Canada of other Negroes who feared that they might be the next victims. But what if there could be found some means of using British law to secure the return of fugitives from Canada? This appears to have been in the minds of those who tried to get Anderson out of Canada in 1860. It is difficult to account, otherwise, for the strenuous efforts that were made to secure his extradition. That the Missouri slaveholders felt they were performing something in the nature of a public service by fighting this case in the Canadian courts, is evidenced by their request that the State should reimburse them for their outlay.[1]

John Anderson appears to have arrived in Canada in November 1853, crossing over the Detroit River to Windsor where he stayed with Mrs. Bibb, mother of Henry Bibb, who was attempting to organize a refugee settlement not far from that frontier point. Mrs. Laura S. Haviland, a philanthropic Michigan woman who was doing missionary and educational work among the fugitives, met him soon after his arrival and learned his story. She says that he came to her asking that she write a letter for him. This letter revealed the tragedy in which he had recently figured and that had caused him to flee to Canada. She had noted the sadness in his face which indicated the stress through which he had passed. He told her that to satisfy a debt he had been sold by his master, Seneca Diggs, and was to be separated from his wife and four children. Husband and wife pleaded not to be separated but the reply was that the buyer desired only the man. Later, however, the master indicated that some other arrangement might be arrived at but the man was suspicious and armed himself with a dirk. His suspicions were further aroused when he was told to come to the woods where some trees were to be chopped and when he noticed that the master had a stout rope under his coat. The slave kept at a distance from the master until the latter finally frankly admitted his purpose. The slave declared that he would never be taken but at this point another man appeared and Anderson began to run. The slavers followed him for seven miles and finally had him cornered. Anderson flourished his knife and threatened to kill the first man who laid hands upon him. All stood back but Diggs who, with a knife in his hand, rushed at the slave. In the melee the master was stabbed and the slave escaped into the woods. That night he saw his wife and family for the last time. The woman informed him that he had killed his master and that if he were caught he could expect to be burned alive or chopped to pieces. She urged him to flee to Canada, and if he arrived there safely, he was to write to her father who was free. This is the story as he told it to Mrs. Haviland and it was the letter to his father-in-law that he wished her to write.

Mrs. Haviland shrewdly suspected that a letter from Canada addressed to a Negro related to Anderson would not likely reach its destination and would also give a clue to the fugitive's whereabouts. Accordingly she dated the letter from Adrian, Michigan, and asked that the reply be sent there. The answer, which came shortly after, said that Anderson's wife and four children were being brought to him. Mrs. Haviland replied to this letter but warned Anderson not to cross the Detroit River as she suspected a plot. In her message she asked the party to come to Adrian, Michigan, and inquire for Mrs. Laura Haviland, a widow, from whom information could be had regarding Anderson. A few days later a white man called, very clearly a southerner, and informed her that Anderson's family was in Detroit staying in the home of a Negro minister named Williams. The visitor seemed exceedingly anxious to find out where Anderson was and Mrs. Haviland finally told him that the man was in Chatham and advised that his family should be sent there. At this the visitor's face reddened rather noticeably. Mrs. Haviland lost no time in sending a message to Anderson advising him to leave Chatham. He got out none too soon for within a few days white men were in Chatham inquiring for him. They were told that he had gone to Sault Ste. Marie and they followed the trail there but without success. Finally they disappeared after leaving with Detroit people power of attorney to arrest Anderson, if he could ever be decoyed over the river or should be found there.

Mrs. Haviland, in her memoirs, says that after this effort to capture Anderson as a murderer she wrote a letter to Lord Elgin, the Governor of the Canadas, setting forth the facts, and that she received this reply from him: "In case of a demand for William Anderson, he should require the case to be tried in their British courts; and if twelve freeholders should testify that he had been a man of integrity since his arrival in their dominion it should clear him."[2]

There is a rather curious similarity between the latter part of this statement and the recent decision from Ottawa in the Bullock case, namely, that as the latter had conducted himself well since entering the country he should not be deported.

About three years after the events mentioned above, which would be about 1856, Mrs. Haviland records a meeting with D. L. Ward, a New Orleans attorney, who said to her: "We are going to have Anderson by hook or by crook; we will have him by fair means or foul; the South is determined to have that man."

The whereabouts of Anderson between 1853 and 1859 is not on record. Probably he lived most of that time in southwestern Ontario where his own people were most numerous. It is stated that he had worked in Hamilton and Caledonia. In the fall of 1860 he was working near Brantford when it came to the ears of a magistrate at Brantford, Matthews by name, that at some time in the past this Negro had committed a crime and was a fugitive from the justice of his own State. Matthews had the Negro arrested and locked him up. It would appear that he had no evidence of any kind other than rumor. S. B. Freeman, who defended Anderson later, says that he went to the Brantford magistrate and made inquiries about the prisoner, being told that the fugitive was held pending the receipt of necessary evidence. According to Freeman's charges, which were made publicly in The Toronto Globe of December 11, 1860, Matthews communicated with private detectives in Detroit who passed the word on to friends of the deceased Diggs in Missouri and they promptly applied at Washington for extradition papers. The Hamilton Times charged that Matthews had subjected his prisoner to most rigorous prison life for two months, keeping him ironed, permitting no Negro friends to see him, not even admitting Rev. Walter Hawkins, the Negro preacher who afterwards became a bishop.[3] It required very much persuasion on the part of Freeman, and apparently some threats as well, to induce the Brantford magistrate to release his prisoner. When let out of jail Anderson went to Simcoe and was working there when again arrested, this time, it would appear, on a warrant sworn out by a Detroit man named Gunning. There are indications in the press reports of the time that the Brantford magistrate was much aggrieved at his prisoner getting into other hands and sought to have the case transferred to Brantford, being aided in this by the county Crown attorney.

In a letter to the Hamilton Spectator Freeman made this charge against the magistrate: "Mr. Matthews arrested him as having been guilty of murder without any legal evidence of a murder having been committed, or, in fact, of any one having been killed by him. And after he had him in custody he communicated with the authorities for the necessary evidence."[4]

On November 24 Anderson was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices Burns and McLean. S. B. Freeman appeared for the prisoner and Henry Eccles and R. A. Harrison for the attorney-general. Freeman read the warrant of committal by William Matthews and the two other Brantford magistrates who had been associated with him. The evidence was to the effect that on September 28, 1859 (sic), Anderson was on the estate of Seneca T. P. Diggs in Howard County, Missouri, and that Diggs, while attempting with Negro help to arrest Anderson, was stabbed twice and later died. The question was whether Canada was to administer the slave laws of Missouri. The counsel for the Crown admitted that Anderson's act, if committed in Canada, would not be murder.

The Anderson case was practically the last important case to come before Chief Justice Sir John Beverly Robinson, and around perhaps no decision of his whole legal career did more excitement center. While the justices were considering the evidence public meetings were being held, not only in Toronto but in other Canadian cities. Newspapers were furiously defending the fugitive and the judgment of the court was being awaited with tense interest.

It was understood on November 30 that the Chief Justice was ready to give decision but that he deferred for his associates. On that date there were special police on duty about the court in fear of an attempt at rescue by the Negroes and others. The Globe of that date contended that the question of surrendering the man, being a matter of a treaty, should have been dealt with by the executive and not by the courts at all.

"The universal heart and conscience of the people of Canada and of the British nation will say upon the facts of the case that Anderson is not a murderer in the sight of God, or under British law," was a part of its comment editorially upon the case. A day or two later the paper pointed out the significance of this particular case. If Anderson were given up, it maintained, "no fugitive slave in Canada is safe on our soil ... there is not a fugitive in Canada whose extradition may not be demanded upon evidence sufficient to put the accused upon his trial."[5]

The court finally gave its judgment on Saturday, December 15. The papers of the following Monday say, that as the decision was being given, police stood about the court with muskets and that a company of Royal Canadian Rifles were also under arms at the Government House.

In its decision the court was not unanimous. The Chief Justice and Justice Burns favored extradition while Justice McLean dissented. The biographer of the Chief Justice says of this judgment: "Their decision was neither in support of nor against slavery but was based entirely upon the consideration of the treaty existing between the United States and Canada." The biographer quotes also as follows from an English contemporary: "These judges, proof against unpopularity and unswayed by their own bitter hatred of slavery, as well as unsoftened by their own feelings for a fellow man, in agonizing peril, upheld the law made to their hands and which they are sworn faithfully to administer. Fiat justitia. Give them their due. Such men are the ballast of nations."[6]

Gerrit Smith, the famous abolitionist, was one of those who acted on behalf of the fugitive, and his plea made a strong impression. He argued that Anderson was not guilty of murder but at the worst of homicide, that the Ashburton case did not require the surrender of fugitives and that in any case Anderson's delivery was a matter for the English courts to decide.

On the evening of December 19, 1860, a huge mass meeting was held in St. Lawrence Hall. The mayor of the city presided and the chief speaker of the evening was John Scoble, the abolitionist.[7] He was able to throw considerable light upon the exact meaning of the extradition treaty, having interviewed both Lord Aberdeen and Lord Brougham on its terms in relation to fugitive slaves at the time that it was passing through the British Parliament. He was at that time the secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society of England which had become alarmed over the possibilities to fugitives in Canada of the extradition clauses.[8]

Ashburton told him, he said, "that the article in question was no more designed to touch the fugitive slave than to affect the case of deserters or parties charged with high treason." Lord Aberdeen stated that instructions would be sent to the Governor of Canada that in the case of fugitive slaves great care was to be taken to see that the treaty did not work their ruin. Sir Charles Metcalfe, Governor of Canada, was quoted by the speaker as having said that he would never be a party to wronging fugitives.

In the course of his address Mr. Scoble gave some information about the arrest of Anderson. He said that he personally went to Brantford as soon as Anderson was taken up in April and tried to get a writ of habeas corpus but could get no help from counsel in Brantford. At the Brantford spring assizes Anderson was released by the judge, since there was no evidence against him, but was rearrested three days later. Other speakers at the St. Lawrence Hall gathering were Rev. Wm. King, M. C. Cameron, Rev. Dr. Willis, Rev. Dr. Burns, Peter Brown and Rev. Mr. Marling. At the close of the meeting there were cheers for Anderson and others and groans for Magistrate Matthews.

There was much comment in the Canadian press on the case as a whole and upon the judgment in particular. The Montreal Herald of December 19, 1860, said: "We hope that the day will never come when the wretches who traffic in the bodies and souls of their fellow creatures will be able to say to any British subject, 'And thou also art made like unto us.'" The Quebec Mercury said: "The judgment of the court in Anderson's case is one of those infamous prostitutions of judicial power to political expediency which in this degenerate age have too frequently polluted the judicial ermine." The Montreal Witness said: "Such a gigantic wrong cannot exist on the same continent with us without affecting the people of Canada in one way or another. Slaveholders long looked at Canada with evil eye. If the slavers get Anderson back they will execute him before the slaves. It would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to them annually."

Speaking on the evening of December 20 before the St. Patrick's Literary Society of Montreal, Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee condemned the decision in the Anderson case. "As a fugitive slave has never been yielded by this province," he said, "I cannot believe that we are going to take upon ourselves the yoke of that servitude just now. We have no bonds to break or keep with the 'peculiar institution' of the south; and the true voice and spirit of this province is that when the flying slave has once put the roar of Niagara between him and the bay of the bloodhounds of his master—from that hour, no man shall ever dream of recovering him as his chattel property."

As soon as the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was given, abolitionists in Toronto decided to carry the case to English courts and did so, securing from the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster an order to bring Anderson there. In the meantime the case was carried to the Court of Common Pleas in Toronto and there on February 16, 1861, Chief Justice Draper acquitted Anderson, for the following reasons, as quoted in The Toronto Leader: "In the first place, the magistrate's warrant was defective inasmuch as the words used in the warrant did not imply the charge of murder, though perhaps expressing more than manslaughter; secondly, the warrant of commitment was also defective in not adhering to the words of the treaty."

It would take long to list all the meetings, petitions, resolutions, and protests that were brought forth by the Anderson case. The Anti-Slavery Society of Canada, with headquarters in Toronto, was, of course, active throughout the whole case. Early in January it was reported that a petition signed by more than 2500 people had been forwarded from Montreal on behalf of Anderson and from elsewhere in Canada came similar protests.

With the decision of Chief Justice Draper the Anderson case was closed and the fugitive disappears. As a result, however, of the unseemly action of the Brantford magistrate the Canadian law was revised so as to take from the control of ordinary magistrates jurisdiction as regards foreign fugitives from justice, leaving such cases with county judges and police justices.

Fred Landon.

The Public Library,
London, Ontario.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] On March 27, 1861, certain Howard County citizens petitioned for money advanced by them to prosecute Anderson in the Canadian Courts (Session Laws, 1860, p. 534).

[2] For Mrs. Haviland's story see her book, "A Woman's Life Work," published at Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1881. Anderson's story as told to her is found on pages 197-8.

[3] See The Toronto Globe, Nov. 14, 1860.

[4] Quoted in The Toronto Globe, Nov. 29, 1860.

[5] The Toronto Globe, Dec. 3, 1860.

[6] Life of Sir John Beverly Robinson, London, 1904, pp. 326-7.

[7] The proceedings of this meeting are reported at length in The Globe of the following day.

[8] Article X of the Ashburton Treaty, dealing with extradition, reads as follows: "It is agreed that the United States and Her Britannic Majesty shall, upon mutual requisition by them, or their ministers, officers, or authorities, respectively made, deliver up to justice all persons who, being charged with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged paper, shall seek an asylum, or shall be found within the territories of the other; provided that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the crime or offence had there been committed, etc."

---

A NEGRO SENATOR

Incredible as it may sound to the twentieth century reader, the Commonwealth of Mississippi was for six years ably represented in the United States Senate by a distinguished Negro Senator, the Honorable B. K. Bruce. So inspiring is the story of Senator Bruce's efforts in the defense of humanity that it ought not to be permitted to lie in obscurity for want of a sympathetic pen. The present venture, therefore, is an attempt, though belated, to recount some of the achievements of this statesman whose public career looms up as a monument to the American Negro's self-confidence, resolution, and persistency.

Senator Bruce's career in the upper chamber of Congress began on March 5, 1875, at the special session of the Forty-fourth Congress, called by President Grant. His name appears in the Congressional Record of that session as "Branch" K. Bruce, Floreyville, Mississippi. He was assigned to the Committee on Manufactures and to the Committee on Education and Labor and later to the Committee on Pensions and the Committee on the Improvement of the Mississippi River and its Tributaries.[1]

Antedating his election to the United States Senate, Senator Bruce had held positions of trust and honor in the State of Mississippi. He had been Sheriff, Tax-Collector, Commissioner of the Levees Board, and County Superintendent of Education. Moreover, he had served as Sergeant-at-Arms of the first State Senate after the Reconstruction Period, and Commissioner of Elections in a county that was reputed as being the most lawless in the State. In all these positions, Senator Bruce had displayed such integrity of purpose, sagacious statesmanship, and tireless industry that his election to the United States Senate followed as a logical and merited promotion.[2]

Senator Bruce's "maiden speech" in the Senate was delivered shortly after he took his seat during the special session. The speech was a vigorous protest against the proposed removal of the troops from the South, Mississippi in particular, where the military authorities were still in control. The speech made a profound impression on the Senate and clearly indicated the manly stand which Senator Bruce was preparing to take against the injustices practised against Negro citizens both North and South.[3]

The regular session of the Forty-fourth Congress, which convened on Monday, December 6, 1875, gave Senator Bruce numerous opportunities for energetic efforts. Early in the session, he presented a petition of the Sons of Temperance of the District of Columbia, praying for legislation for the District of Columbia and the Territories; for the prohibition of the importation of alcoholic liquors from abroad and that total abstinence be made a condition of the civil, military, and naval service. Later he introduced a Bill "to provide for the payment of bounties, etc., to colored soldiers and sailors and their heirs."[4] His first important opportunity for valuable service came during the discussion of the resolution to admit former Governor Pinchback as a Senator from Louisiana. The resolution had been presented on March 5, 1875, at the special session of the Senate—"That P. B. S. Pinchback be admitted as a Senator from the State of Louisiana for the term of six years, beginning with the fourth of March 1873." Senator Bruce delivered the following address:

When I entered upon my duties here as Senator from Mississippi, the question ceased to be novel, and had already been elaborately and exhaustively discussed. So far as opportunity has permitted me to do so, I have dispassionately examined the question in the light of the discussion, and I venture my views now with the diffidence inspired by my limited experience in the consideration of such questions and by a just appreciation of the learning and ability of the gentlemen who have already attempted to elucidate and determine this case.

I believe, Mr. President, whatever seeming informalities may attach to the manner in which the will of the people was ascertained, Mr. Pinchback is the representative of a majority of the legal voters of Louisiana, and is entitled to a seat in the Senate. In the election of 1872, the white population of the State exceeded, by the census of 1872, the colored population by about two thousand, including in the white estimate 6,300 foreigners, only half of whom were naturalized. This estimate, at the same ratio in each race, would give a large majority of colored voters. The census and registration up to 1872 substantially agree, and both sustain this conclusion. The census of 1875, taken in pursuance of an article of the State constitution, gives, after including the foreign population (naturalized and unnaturalized) in the white aggregate, a majority of 45,695 colored population.

This view of the question is submitted not as determining the contest, but as an offset to the allegation that Mr. Pinchback does not fairly represent the popular will of the State, and as a presumption in favor of the legal title of the assembly that elected him.

The State government elected in 1872, and permanently inaugurated in January 1873, in the face of contest and opposition, obtained for its authority the recognition of the inferior and supreme courts of the State. When organized violence threatened its existence and the United States Government was appealed to for troops to sustain it, the national Executive, in pursuance of his constitutional authority and duty, responded to the demand made for help, prefacing said action by an authoritative declaration, made through the Attorney General, addressed to Lieutenant-Governor Pinchback, then Acting Governor, of date of December 12, 1872, that said Pinchback was "recognized as the lawful executive of Louisiana, and the body assembled at Mechanics' Institute as the lawful Legislature of the State"; and similar recognition of his successor was subsequently given. When in September 1874, an attempt was made to overthrow the government, the President again interposed with the Army and Navy for its protection and the maintenance of its authority.

This government has proceeded to enact and enforce laws for three years, which not only affect life, liberty, and property, but which have received the general obedience of the citizens of the State. The present government also has frequently been brought in official contact with the United States Congress—through its legislatures of 1873 and 1875, by memorials and joint resolutions addressed to the respective Houses; and through its executive, by credentials, borne by Congressmen and by Senators—and in no case has the legitimate authority of the Legislature been excepted to save in the action of electing a United States Senator; and in no instance has the sufficiency of the executive's credentials been questioned, in either House, except in the matter of the senatorial claimant.

Now, sir, shall we admit by our action on this ease that for three years the State of Louisiana has not had a lawful Legislature; that its laws have been made by an unauthorized mob; that the President of the United States actively, and Congress, by non-action at least, have sustained and perpetuated this abnormal, illegal, wrongful condition of things, thereby justifying and provoking the indignant and violent protests of one portion of the people of that State, and inviting them to renewed and continued agitation and violence? Such action by us would be unjust to the claimant, a great wrong to the people who sent him here, and cruel even to that class who have awaited an opportunity to bring to their support the overwhelming moral power of the nation in the pursuit of their illusion—which has so nearly ruined the future of that fair State—a government based upon the prejudices of caste.

I respectfully ask attention of Senators to another view of this subject, which is not without weight in determining the obligations of this body to the State of Louisiana and in ascertaining the title of the claimant. If the assumption that the present government inaugurated in 1873 is without legal authority and usurpation is true, the remedy for the state of things was to be found in the exercise of Congress through the joint action of the two Houses of the powers conferred under the guaranteeing clause of the Constitution relative to republican forms of government in the several States.

Failing to exercise her power and perform her duty in this direction, and thus practically perpetuating the present government, I submit that, in my judgment, we cannot now ignore our obligation to give the State her full representation on the score of the alleged irregularity of the government through which she has expressed her will; and there does seem to me, in this connection, something incongruous in the proposition that we may impose upon the people a government without legal sanction and demand their obedience to and support thereof, said government meanwhile determining the character of its successors and thus perpetuating its talent, and yet are powerless to admit a Senator elected thereby.

In my judgment, this question shall at this juncture be considered and decided not on abstract but practical grounds. Whatever wrongs have been done and mistakes made in Louisiana by either party, the present order of things is accepted by the people of the State and by the nation, and will be maintained as a final settlement of the political issues that have divided the people there; and no changes in the administration of public affairs can or will be made except by the people, through the ballot, under the existing government and laws of the Commonwealth.

Under these circumstances, holding the question in abeyance is, in my judgment, an unconstitutional deprivation of the right of a State, and a provocation to popular disquietude; and in the interest of good-will and good government, the most judicious and consistent course is to admit the claimant to his seat.

I desire, Mr. President, to make a personal reference to the claimant. I would not attempt one or deem one proper were it not that his personal character has been assailed.

As a father, I know him to be affectionate; as a husband, the idol of a pleasant home and cheerful fireside; as a citizen, loyal, brave, and true. And in his character and success we behold an admirable illustration of the excellence of our republican institutions.[5]

This speech, printed in its entirety, is an honest, frank, and convincing enunciation of republican truths. It is an unselfish and sober appeal for justice to another member of the Negro race. Bereft of all rhetorical embellishments, as the speech is, it may well pass for a masterpiece of logical thought and dynamic expression. It is the forerunner of even mightier utterances.

Long before Senator Bruce donned his senatorial toga, rioting in Mississippi had become prevalent. In fact, his own county, Bolivar, was perhaps the only one in the State which had not furnished a stage for bitter race feuds; and even this county narrowly averted a calamity. Back in the early seventies, a report gained currency that in a few days there was to be a "shooting up" in Bolivar. Guns and ammunition were being stored, and the outlook became menacing. The riot, however, was averted because Senator Bruce went personally to the controlling citizens and succeeded in arousing a strong sentiment against the threatening disorder. Bolivar County was thus enabled to boast that it had never been stained with bloodshed, and even today the memory of Senator Bruce is held in highest respect in Bolivar County.

In other sections of the State, rioting became so prevalent, especially on election days, that the returns of the elections were open to serious doubt. The United States Senate was forced to take cognizance of this condition. On Friday, March 31, 1876, a Resolution was introduced appointing a Committee "to investigate the late election in Mississippi." Senator Bruce embraced this opportunity to give a clear exposition of the condition of affairs in his State. His speech on this occasion reveals him as a broad-minded and courageous statesman free from the curse of narrow dogma and paltry aim. He began by announcing the basic principles of a democracy that will survive:

The conduct of the late election in Mississippi affected not merely the fortunes of the partisans—as the same were necessarily involved in the defeat or success of the respective parties to the contest—but put in question and jeopardy the sacred rights of the citizens; and the investigation contemplated in the pending resolution has for its object not the determination of the question whether the offices shall be held and the public affairs of the State be administered by Democrats or Republicans, but the higher and more important end, the protection in all their purity and significance of the political rights of the people and the free institutions of the country.[6]

He continued by referring to the evidence which proved that the voters of Mississippi in the "late election" had not had an actual opportunity to cast their votes:

The evidence in hand and accessible will show beyond peradventure that in many parts of the State corrupt and violent influences were brought to bear upon the registrars of voters, thus materially affecting the character of the voting or poll lists; upon the inspectors of election, prejudicially and unfairly, thereby changing the number of votes cast; and finally threats and violence were practiced directly upon the masses of voters in such measure and strength as to produce grave apprehensions for personal safety and as to deter them from the exercise of their political franchises.

It was in this speech that Senator Bruce replied to the erstwhile criticism that the Negro was a coward because he endured every kind of indignity without retaliating. Taking the prevalent view of progressive thought of the nineteenth century, he spoke as follows:

It will not accord with the laws of nature or history to brand colored people a race of cowards. On more than one historic field, beginning in 1776 and coming down to the centennial year of the Republic, they have attested in blood their courage as well as a love of liberty. I ask Senators to believe that no consideration of fear or personal danger has kept us quiet and forbearing under the provocations and wrongs that have so sorely tried our souls. But feeling kindly towards our white fellow-citizens, appreciating the good purposes and offices of the better classes, and, above all, abhorring war of races, we determined to wait until such time as an appeal to the good sense and justice of the American people could be made.[7]

This pronouncement of Senator Bruce exalting the manly virtue of patience, even in the face of grave injustices, was preeminently representative of the most highly educated Negro thought of the century in which Senator Bruce lived, and must be interpreted in terms of the philosophy of his day. If it should be objected to by some of the most highly developed Negro thought of the present day, the increasing tendency towards retaliation should be attributed partly to the American Negro's metamorphosis since the colossal struggle for that Utopian dream—a World's Democracy.

Perhaps the part of Senator Bruce's speech which has given most impetus to similar modern expression is contained in the following excerpt:

The sober American judgment must obtain in the South as elsewhere in the Republic, that the only distinctions upon which parties can be safely organized and in harmony with our institutions are differences of opinion relative to principles and policies of government, and that differences of religion, nationality, or race can neither with safety nor propriety be permitted for a moment to enter into the party contests of the day. The unanimity with which the colored voters act with a party is not referable to any race prejudice on their part. On the contrary, they invite the political cooperation of their white brethren, and vote as a unit because proscribed as such. They deprecate the establishment of the color line by the opposition, not only because the act is unwise, but because it isolates them from the white men of the South and forces them, in sheer self-protection, and against their inclination, to act seemingly upon the basis of a race prejudice that they neither respect nor entertain. They not only recognize the equality of citizenship and the right of every man to hold without proscription any position of honor and trust to which the confidence of the people may elevate him; but owing nothing to race, birth, or surroundings, they above all other classes, in the community, are interested to see prejudices drop out of both politics and the business of the country, and success in life proceed upon the integrity and merit of the man who seeks it.... But withal, as they progress in intelligence and appreciation of the dignity of their prerogatives as citizens, they as an evidence of growth begin to realize the significance of the proverb, "When thou doest well for thyself, men shall praise thee"; and are disposed to exact the same protection and concession of rights that are conferred upon other citizens by the Constitution, and that too without humiliation involved in the enforced abandonment of their political convictions.

The speech closes with an enthusiastic expression of confidence in American institutions and in the American Negro:

I have confidence, not only in my country and her institutions, but in the endurance, capacity and destiny of my people. We will, as opportunity offers and ability serves, seek our places, sometimes in the field of letters, arts, science and the professions. More frequently mechanical pursuits will attract and elicit our efforts; more still of my people will find employment and livelihood as the cultivators of the soil. The bulk of this people—by surroundings, habits, adaptation, and choice will continue to find their homes in the South and constitute the masses of its yeomanry. We will there, probably of our own volition and more abundantly than in the past, produce the great staples that will contribute to the basis of foreign exchange, aid in giving the nation a balance of trade, and minister to the wants and comforts and build up the prosperity of the whole land. Whatever our ultimate position in the composite civilization of the republic and whatever varying fortunes attend our career, we will not forget our instincts for freedom nor our love for country.[8]

A careful study of the speech shows what a model it has been for speakers and writers of a much later period. It deals openly and frankly with the Southern question, and is prophetic of President Harding's recent utterances on the Negro's political status in the South.

During the second session of the Forty-fourth Congress, Mr. Bruce confined his efforts largely to the relief of the legal heirs of Negro soldiers who had fought to preserve the Union. Consequently, he introduced a number of bills praying that arrears of pensions be granted. In this way, he became the benefactor of many persons who otherwise might never have received their pensions. In addition to such relief legislation, he presented for the second time a petition praying for a general law prohibiting liquor traffic, and introduced a bill for certain improvements in the Mississippi River.[9]

The Forty-fifth Congress was not especially eventful. Senator Bruce, however, continued to introduce bills for the relief of legal heirs of soldiers. During the second session of this Congress, he took an active interest in the Chinese Exclusion Bill, registering his vote against the measure which seemed to him to be contrary to American principles. His denunciation of the selfish policy of the United States toward the Indian was more pronounced than that of his dissatisfaction with the restriction of the immigration of the Chinese. He believed that the attitude of the Americans toward the Indian bred hatred and discontent and made the Indian a fugitive and a vagabond. He believed that the United States Government should do something to civilize the Indian rather than to restrict him. The Indian could be made a desirable citizen if the best elements of his nature were developed to enable him to exercise the functions of citizenship. He early advocated, therefore, that the Indians should cease to be dealt with as tribes and should receive consideration as individuals, "subject to American law and beneficiaries of American institutions." The Indian then, when no longer branded as an outlaw, would in the very near future advance to the position when the cooperation and the protection of the white man would be welcomed as that of friends.[11]

It was during the Forty-sixth Congress that Senator Bruce was most active. Senator Bruce did most constructive work in advocating the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi river. The importance of this question today is not so striking as it was at that time for the reason that little had been done to protect life and property from the inundations of that stream. Senator Bruce kept this important problem before Congress urging not only that the interest of the people in the valley itself be taken care of, but that this river should by adequate facilities be made the highway of interstate and foreign commerce. Toward this end Senator Bruce offered several bills meeting the exigencies of the time and providing for future needs. As the foresight of a majority of the members of Congress at that time was not sufficient to appreciate this statesmanlike effort of Senator Bruce, his program for this important internal improvement was not carried out, although some important efforts since then to supply this need in our economic development must be considered as due in some measure to the persistence and the courage of Senator Bruce in keeping this question before Congress.[12]

Senator Bruce, moreover, had been watching, with increasing misgivings, the affairs of that notorious banking bubble, more pretentiously known as the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company. To protect the rights of the depositors of the defunct institution, he offered the following resolution, on April 7, 1879:

That the President of the Senate appoint a committee of five on the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company to take into consideration all matters relating to said institution, and that said committee be authorized to employ a clerk, and that the necessary expenses be paid out of the "miscellaneous items" of the contingent fund of the Senate.[13]

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to. The Vice President, the Honorable William A. Wheeler, subsequently appointed Senator Bruce as Chairman of this committee. The other members were Senators Cameron of Wisconsin, Gordon, Withers, and Garland. To head such a committee was, indeed, an enviable privilege, but the real opportunity lay in the kind of service which the entangled affairs of the bank made possible. At this time, the affairs of the bank were in the hands of three commissioners, each receiving $3000 a year, and no promise of winding up the business of the bank was foreshadowed. Thus the available assets were reduced annually by the total amount of these salaries. The assets, of course, were to be paid pro rata to the depositors.

In order that his committee might have more power to go into the management of the bank, Senator Bruce offered the following resolution on May 16, 1879:

That the Select Committee on the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company appointed by resolution of the Senate of April 7, 1879, is authorized and directed to investigate the affairs of said savings and trust company and its several branches, to ascertain and report to the Senate all matters relating to the management of the same and the cause or causes of failure, with such other facts relating thereto as may be important to a full understanding of the management and present condition of the institution and to a more economical administration and speedy adjustment of its affairs.

Following this resolution, Senator Bruce presented a petition of R. M. Hall, M.D., and others, citizens of Baltimore, Maryland, praying the passage of an act requiring the commissioners of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company to close up the affairs of the institution and distribute the assets among the creditors thereof. This petition was presented on May 27, 1879.

The resolution and the petition had their desired effect. The services of the commissioners were dispensed with, thus saving $9000 a year for the depositors; and the final settlement of the claims was turned over to the Controller of the Treasury. To Senator Bruce's Committee, therefore, goes the credit of bringing a speedy close to the affairs of the defunct Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, with the minimum of further loss to the depositors. Later, Senator Bruce made a strong, but vain, appeal to reimburse the colored depositors of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company for losses incurred by the failure of the bank.

His final dealings with the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company came in the third session of the Forty-sixth Congress, when he introduced the following bill:

That the Senate authorize and direct the purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury, for public use, the property known as the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, and the real estate and parcels of ground adjacent thereto, belonging to the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, and located on Pennsylvania Avenue between Fifteenth and Fifteenth-and-a-half Streets, Washington, District of Columbia.

The bill was considered, amended, and passed.[14]

Ever alert to the educational needs of the colored youth, Senator Bruce introduced, among many other bills, during the second session of the Forty-sixth Congress, a bill:

To provide for the investment of certain unclaimed pay and bounty moneys now in the Treasury of the United States and to facilitate and encourage the education of the colored race in the several States and Territories.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, amended by Mr. Pendleton of Ohio, and reported back adversely and postponed indefinitely.[15]

Senator Bruce was not returned to the Forty-seventh Congress. The record, however, which he made in the Forty-fourth, Forty-fifth, and Forty-sixth Congresses will ever maintain for him a prominent place among the progressive and constructive statesmen of this country. And here our account should end if it were not for the fact that some of our readers will want a glimpse of some of the significant events in Senator Brace's life, exclusive of his career in the Senate. A condensed account of such facts will suffice.

Senator Bruce was not a native Mississippian. He was born in the little town of Farmville, Virginia. At an early age, he made his way to Missouri, thence to Mississippi where he arrived in 1868. In 1878, he married Miss Josephine B. Wilson, of Cleveland, Ohio, a lady of most excellent parts and refined culture. A son, Roscoe Conklin, was born in 1879—a polished gentleman by birth, an educator by training, an orator and debater by choice, and a scholar by nature. Both wife and son survive the late Senator.[16]

Senator Bruce belonged to that rugged, self-made type of manhood that did right to prosper in this world and hope for felicity in the next. He studied under private tutors and spent two years at Oberlin College. Like many successful statesmen, he served his time in the classroom as a teacher. It was during his teaching career that he was persuaded by Henry Ward Beecher to enter the Christian ministry, but the inward voice did not respond to the ministerial call.

Though his tenure of office as United States Senator lasted but one full term of six years, he was given further opportunities for public service. From 1881 to 1885, he served as Register of the Treasury, having been appointed to this office by President Garfield. In 1889, during the administration of President Benjamin Harrison, he was appointed Recorder of Deeds when the office was operated under a system of fees which netted from twelve to fifteen thousand dollars a year. President McKinley called him a second time to the office of Register of the Treasury, in which position he remained until his death in 1898.

G. David Houston

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Congressional Record, 44th Congress, First Session.

[2] Simmons, Men of Mark, 699-703.

[3] Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 2100-2105.

[4] Ibid., pp. 736, 1547, 5138.

[5] Congressional Record, 1st Session, pp. 1444, 1445.

[6] Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 2100-2105.

[7] Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2104.

[8] Congressional Record, Forty-sixth Congress, 1st Session, p. 2104.

[9] Ibid., p. 2105.

[10] Ibid., p. 2105.

[11] Congressional Record, Forty-sixth Congress, 2d Session, pp. 2195-2196.

[12] Congressional Record, Forty-fifth Congress, 1st Session, pp. 201, 245; 3d Session, pp. 1314, 1316, 2309.

[13] Ibid., Forty-sixth Congress, 1st Session, pp. 45, 71, 435, 1679, 2415; 3d Session, pp. 632, 668.

[14] Congressional Record, Forty-sixth Congress, 2d Session, pp. 45, 273, 538.

[15] Ibid., pp. 1619, 1953, 2053, 2384, 4563.

[16] See Simmons, Men of Mark, pp. 699-703.

---

LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PLAN

There was some slavery in the Northwest Territory to which Lincoln moved with his father from Kentucky, for although that section had been dedicated to freedom by the Ordinance of 1787, slavery in a modified form existed there for three reasons. The Ordinance was not considered emancipatory so far as it regarded the British slaves held in such service prior to 1795, those of French masters prior to 1763 and those already in that condition when the Ordinance was passed. Furthermore, after separating from the Indiana Territory, Illinois legalized slavery by indenture, provided for the hiring of slaves from Southern States to supply labor in its various industries, and at the same time passed a stringent law to prohibit the immigration of free Negroes into that State. Later there followed an attempt to open the State to slavery by the Legislature of 1822-1823, but the slave party was defeated by the election of Governor Coles, who would not permit the reactionary element to reduce that commonwealth to a mediaeval basis.[1] Such slavery as existed in Illinois, however, differed widely from that in the South where it had become economic rather than patriarchal as it then existed in certain parts of the North.

On a trip by way of the Sangamon and the Mississippi to New Orleans in May 1831, Abraham Lincoln got his first impression of economic slavery when he "saw Negroes chained, maltreated, whipped and scourged."[2] He made no mention of this spectacle until a decade later when journeying from Louisville to St. Louis he saw ten or twelve slaves shackled together on a boat. This was sufficient to convince him that this institution was not only an economic evil but a disgrace to a country pretending to be free. Lincoln, therefore, early decided within himself that if he ever attained a position of sufficient power to do something for the extermination of this institution, he would count it the opportunity of his life.

There soon followed an occasion when Lincoln had an opportunity to show his constituents his position on this important question. As a result of the murder of Lovejoy the question of slavery was brought up at the session of the legislature held in 1837 and was referred to a committee. The report of this committee expressed disapproval of abolition societies and carried a declaration to the effect that the Federal Constitution secured the right of property in slaves, and the Government of the United States could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia without the consent of its citizens. After much heated debate and filibustering these resolutions were finally passed, although Lincoln and five other members voted in the negative. Then there followed from Lincoln and Daniel A. Stone a protest, questioning and attacking the moral support of slavery, yet recognizing all the constitutional guarantees that protected it.[3]

Lincoln, as an Illinois Representative in Congress, resorted to a similar procedure in that national body. At this time there was almost a pitched battle between the slave States and the free commonwealths, each one endeavoring to develop more strength than the other in the effort to dictate the policy of the nation with reference to the States to be formed out of the remaining western territory. Lincoln did not take any active part in the discussion of slavery during the first session of his service in Congress, but he always voted against any measure providing for the extension of the institution. However, he still adhered to his position as set forth in the protest in the Illinois Legislature, that Congress had power under the Constitution to regulate or prohibit slavery in all territory subject to its jurisdiction, provided that such power be exercised with due regard to constitutional rights. He, therefore, decided to test the question whether it was possible to remove from the seat of the Federal Government the offensive traffic in human beings. In formulating his plans to carry out this policy, he consulted the leading citizens of the District of Columbia and certain prominent men in Congress.

Having secured the approval of Mayor Seaton of Washington, a representative of the intelligent slave-holding citizens of the District of Columbia, and also the support of Joshua Giddings, the leading abolition member of Congress, Lincoln proposed a bill to this effect. Thereupon Giddings made these remarks: "This evening (January 11th) our whole mess remained in the dining room after tea, and conversed upon the subject of Mr. Lincoln's bill to abolish slavery. It was approved by all; I believe it as good bill as we could get at this time, and am willing to pay for slaves to save them from the southern market, as I suppose every man in the District would sell his slaves if he saw that slavery was to be abolished."[4]

In the meantime a less radical bill providing also for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had been introduced by Representative Gott of New York. Lincoln, therefore, moved as an amendment on January 16, 1849, that a committee report a bill for the emancipation of all slaves in the District of Columbia. This measure prohibited the bringing of slaves into and selling them out of the District except in the case of those temporarily serving persons representing slave-holding States. It made provision for a tentative system of apprenticeship and the eventual emancipation of children born of slave mothers after January 1, 1850. It further provided for the manumission of slaves by the Government of the United States with compensation to the owners who might make application therefor, for the return of fugitive slaves from Washington and Georgetown, and finally for the submission of the bill to popular vote in the District of Columbia. This measure, however, and its probability of success so excited the proslavery members of Congress and the slave owners in the District of Columbia that a violent opposition thereto followed. So many influential forces were arrayed against the measure that its friends did not further endeavor to pilot it through the House.[5] This unsuccessful effort marked the expiration of Lincoln's term in Congress.

Declining to become a candidate for renomination to Congress, Lincoln returned to Springfield, partially withdrew from politics, and devoted himself largely to the practice of law. He reappeared as an active participant in politics in Illinois in 1854, when there appeared a new aspect of the question as reflected by the debate incident to the Kansas-Nebraska controversy. At this time Lincoln was called for in all directions to deliver addresses to inform the people on the issue of the day. In this connection he demonstrated his inalterable opposition to the extension of slavery.[6] He objected to the iniquitous doctrine of the Nebraska Bill in that it assumed that there was moral right in the enslaving of one man by another, and, further, that it tended to be unmistakably subversive of the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was of the opinion that the salvation of the Union was dependent upon the extension or the restriction of slavery. Realizing the futility and the hopelessness of voluntary emancipation, he asserted that the "Autocrat of all the Russias" would resign his crown, and proclaim freedom to all his subjects sooner than the "American masters" would voluntarily give up their slaves.[7] It is remarkable that Lincoln's speculative affirmation was followed by what he thought an impossibility, for on the day preceding Mr. Lincoln's inauguration the "Autocrat of all the Russias," Alexander II, by an imperial decree emancipated his serfs; "while six weeks after the inauguration, the proslavery element, headed by Jefferson Davis, began the Rebellion to perpetuate and to spread the institution of slavery."

In 1857 came the Dred Scott decision, in which Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court dragged that tribunal into politics, aiming to settle the question of slavery in the territories, but it stimulated rather than suppressed the discussion of slavery, as was evident by its outburst in the debates between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stephen A. Douglas.[8] The main question was whether, according to the Constitution, Congress could prohibit slavery in the territories. Lincoln contended that it could but Douglas was evasive, as he hoped to reconcile his popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln, on the other hand, showed that the public estimate of the Negro had become decidedly lower than it was prior to the industrial revolution, when masters could emancipate their bondmen of their own volition. Since then it had become common for the State Legislature, which in the exercise of the sovereignty of the State had the power to abolish slavery within its limits, to withhold that power and to make legal restraints tantamount to prohibition.

Lincoln opposed Mr. Douglas in 1858 when he contested the latter's reelection to the United States Senate. Toward this end he launched a more determined antislavery program than ever before, advancing the doctrine that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and likewise that "the Union could not endure permanently, half slave and half free."[9] He further declared that either the advocates of slavery would push the institution forward until it became alike lawful in both North and South, or the opponents thereof would arrest its extension. Douglas had charged the Republicans with the intent to abolish slavery in the States and had asserted that their opposition to the Dred Scott decision marked their desire for Negro equality and amalgamation.[10] To this charge Lincoln replied that the Republicans were not directing their efforts toward abolition in the slave States, but toward the exclusion of slavery from the territories. He forcibly denied the accusation that the Republicans solicited social equality and amalgamation with the Negro, declaring that there was a physical difference between the two races, which probably would forever forbid their living together on equal footing; and that, inasmuch as it became a necessity that there must be a difference, he, like Douglas, favored his race for the superior position. Lincoln admitted that in some respects the Negro, according to the Declaration of Independence, was not the white man's equal; that in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity the Negro was not on a par with the white man; but that that instrument did, with tolerable distinctness, consider "all men created equal" with certain inalienable rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[11] Lincoln held that, notwithstanding all these facts, there was no reason why the Negro was not entitled to all the natural rights embraced by the Declaration of Independence, which are enjoyed by the white man.[12] He interpreted the standard maxim that "all men are created equal" as being of no practical use in effecting the separation of the thirteen Colonies from Great Britain, and, on the contrary, contended that it was placed in the Declaration of Independence for future use in the attainment of democracy.

Lincoln failed to defeat Douglas for the United States Senate but he continued to discuss the constitutionality of the restriction of slavery. On more than one instance he limited his remarks to this question, irrespective of the type of his audience or character of the occasion. He persistently reiterated the doctrine that there was no provision in the Constitution that precluded the right of the Federal Government to control slavery in the territories.[13]

The crisis between 1850 and 1860 brought Lincoln's ideas before larger groups. Until that year the Democrats had apparently remained united. At the Democratic National Convention in Charleston, South Carolina, in April, 1860, there was a division.[14] The Northern Democrats, unable to comply with the demands of the slave power that the convention should adopt a platform requiring Congress to protect slavery in the territories and the Northerners to acknowledge and advocate the moral right of slavery, forced the South to the radical position of withdrawing from the Convention. Since no candidate could then be nominated, the Convention adjourned to Baltimore, in the hope that time would bring about a reconciliation; but in the end the Northern Democrats nominated Douglas, and the Southerners nominated Breckenridge.[15]

The Republican Convention was held in Chicago in May 1860, and there was adopted a moderate platform, with a denial of the right of Congress to interfere with slavery in the States. The Republicans reaffirmed the Declaration of Independence and declared that Congress should prohibit slavery in the territories. They repudiated the Dred Scott decision and advocated a protective system. Their most difficult problem was the selection of a candidate for the presidency. Inasmuch as Seward and Chase had alienated certain elements by their bold advocacy of advanced principles and Lincoln was comparatively unknown, the managers of the party finally accepted him because of his availability. This choice was received with much indignation among the antislavery leaders, for even Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison railed against the nominee and portrayed him as an obscurity.[16]

Lincoln's election forced slavery into the foreground. Without waiting for his inauguration, several Southern States, acting in accordance with their previous threats that they would secede if a Republican President were elected, withdrew from the Union. Others soon followed their example. Congress hastened to offer various concessions to the seceding States,[17] but these efforts for compromise were in vain. The die was cast. When Lincoln asserted that his oath of office bound him to preserve the Union at any cost, civil war became inevitable. The proslavery element opened fire on the American flag at Fort Sumter and forced its surrender April 14.[18] On the next day Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 volunteers. 500,000 others were later called to defend the honor of the nation.

The emancipation of Negroes during the Civil War could not be kept down. It appeared first in the acceptance of Negroes in the Union army camps as contraband, on the ground that they were being used by the Confederates to build fortifications and the like and, if returned to the seceding territory, would be of further use in opposing the Federal troops. General Butler set this precedent when he was in charge of the forces at Fortress Monroe. At first there was some hesitation as to whether the administration should adopt such a policy. Butler's course, however, was approved by Cameron, the Secretary of War, May 30, 1861, although Lincoln was not pleased with it; for he did not desire to alienate the border slave States by radical steps toward emancipation. He was hoping that the nation would trust him, "as having the more commanding view, gradually to fix the attitude of the Government toward the subject,"[19] as the conquest of the Confederacy proceeded. The Federal troops, however, did not at first make much headway in the East, but events west of the Alleghenies progressed favorably for the Union cause, especially in Missouri. Taking advantage of this state of affairs, General John C. Fremont, in charge of this district, proclaimed military emancipation in that State on August 30, 1861. All persons with arms were to be tried by court martial and shot. Their property would be confiscated, and their slaves would thereby be declared free. He appointed a military commission, whose business it was to hear evidence and to issue personal deeds of the manumission of slaves.

When Lincoln was apprised of this proclamation, he forthwith took action. He feared that the provisions of General Fremont's drastic order, providing for the confiscation of property and the emancipation of slaves of traitorous owners, would alarm the Southern friends of the Union, would drive them over to the seceding faction, and perhaps would be instrumental in the loss of the border slave States. Fremont's action was diametrically opposed to Lincoln's policy, in that such emancipation was purely administrative and political, one of civil administration that could not be justified by military necessity. Consequently Lincoln issued an order instructing Fremont to modify his proclamation by striking out the disturbing provisions of the proclamation and substituting therefor the act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes, passed by Congress on August 6, 1861, which authorized the President to cause property used or employed in aid of insurrection to be seized, confiscated, or condemned, providing, however, that such condemnation be made by judicial procedure.[20]

Lincoln, nevertheless, hoped to increase the number of free States through compensated emancipation, which he expected to come through voluntary action on the part of the slave States at the suggestion of the Federal Government. In his next annual message to Congress, however, he made no direct reference to any specific plan of emancipation, but discussed its practical necessities in general terms so as to leave himself in a position to decide later on a definite policy.[21] He endeavored to keep before Congress new and possible contingencies and emphasized the fact that, by virtue of the Confiscation Act, many of the slaves thus liberated were already dependent upon the United States for maintenance, and that they must be provided for. He recommended, therefore, that Congress provide for accepting such persons from States so affected in lieu of direct taxes, and that such persons accepted by the General Government be declared free immediately.

With his plan for compensated emancipation in mind, it was quite natural that Lincoln should look for a field of experimentation in a small State, such as Delaware, especially since there was in Congress from that State, Representative George E. Fisher, who was a staunch Unionist and a friend of the President. Fisher gladly cooperated with Lincoln in carrying out this plan. The Congressman tried to have the Legislature of Delaware pass an act for the gradual compensated emancipation of the 1,798 slaves which that State claimed according to the census of 1861, on the condition that the United States would pay the Delaware slaveholders $400 for each slave. During November of 1861, Lincoln wrote drafts of two separate bills to effect such an agreement.[22] The first bill provided that, on the passage of the act, all Negroes over thirty-five years of age should become free; that all born after the passage of the measure should remain free; and that the rest, after suitable apprenticeship for children, should become free in 1893, while the State in the meanwhile should prohibit the selling of Delaware slaves elsewhere. By the provisions of the second bill the United States Government should pay the State of Delaware $23,200 a year for thirty-one years and all Negroes born after the passage of the act should be declared free, while all others should automatically become free at thirty-five years of age until January, 1893, when all remaining slaves of all ages should become free, subject to apprenticeship for minors born of slave mothers up to the respective ages of eighteen and twenty-one.

One of the drafts was rewritten by the friends of the measure that it might embrace the details and alterations to conform with local opinion and law. It was printed and circulated among the members of the Legislature of Delaware and a special session of that body was called to consider the proposal. The bill, however, was never introduced, because it was feared that it would be voted down by the hostile proslavery majority. The proslavery element, moreover, prepared resolutions to the effect that the bill would encourage the abolition element in Congress, that it bore evidence of an effort to abolish slavery in the States, that Congress had no right to appropriate money for the purchase of slaves, that it was not desirable to make Delaware guarantee the public faith of the United States, that the suggestion of saving expenses to the people by compensated emancipation was a bribe, and that Delaware would abolish slavery of its own volition at a time when its lawmakers would deem it advisable. But these resolutions did not fare much better than Lincoln's bill, for in spite of the fact that they passed the House they were lost in the Senate.[23]

Although disappointed over the failure of his plans for compensated emancipation in Delaware, Lincoln, encouraged by the victories of Thomas and Grant in the West took his next step through Congress to the States.[24] Accordingly, on March 6, 1862, he sent to that body a special message, recommending the adoption of the joint resolution that the United States would cooperate with any State which might adopt gradual emancipation, giving such State compensation for all inconveniences produced by the change of any system within its confines.[25] Lincoln had figured out that less than the cost of the war for a half day would pay for all the slaves in Delaware at $400 each, and that less than eighty-seven days' cost of the war would compensate the slaveowners of Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, and Missouri for all the slaves at the same rate.

The next step took the form of Roscoe Conkling's joint resolution to this effect recommended by Lincoln in his special message of March 6. At the same time Lincoln assembled the Congressmen from the border slave States of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri at the Executive Mansion, where a prolonged discussion of the subject ensued.[26] Lincoln tried to convince these Congressmen of the good faith of the administration, and suggested to them that they take this question of gradual abolition into serious consideration, for the Government of the United States had no right to coerce them. He asserted that emancipation was exclusively a State affair; and that his purpose was simply to present the proposition. Yet probably one reason for the failure of these Congressmen of the border slave States to make a favorable reply or to commit themselves in any way was that they were well aware of Lincoln's determination, according to his special message of March 6, to use all means to save the Union; and they, furthermore, understood the hint that necessity might force him to resort to extreme measures. While this proposition gained no headway with the border slave States, the joint resolution was approved by Congress and received the signature of the President on April 10.

Congress then passed an important measure, the expediency of which Lincoln urged in 1849. This was emancipation in the District of Columbia. Lincoln made no specific recommendations relative to this in his annual message, but later sent a special message to Congress March 6, 1862, taking up the subject in its more extensive aspects. This bill provided for the immediate emancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, and empowered a commission to distribute to slave-holders for their manumitted slaves a compensation not to exceed an aggregate of three hundred dollars a head, with an additional appropriation for $100,000 for expenses of voluntary emigration of freedmen to Haiti and Liberia.[27] Lincoln did not heartily approve this measure, however, for he did not want this to interfere with his policy of compensated emancipation in the border slave States. Even after the bill had been amended, according to his suggestions, he still hesitated and some of his friends thought that he might never sign it, but he did.

The question of emancipation appeared in another form when, upon the capture of Port Royal the previous November, many slaves, abandoned by the fleeing slave-holders, sought protection in the Union army. These slaves, thus dislodged by the misfortunes of war, outnumbered the whites five to one and had to be organized in groups for government protection. Relief societies in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia sent funds and teachers for the slaves. This educational enterprise received the official sanction of Secretary Chase at President Lincoln's request. Wishing further to improve their condition, General David Hunter, commander of the Department of the South, issued on May 9, 1862, an order of military emancipation, proclaiming the Department of the South under martial law and declaring persons in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, heretofore held as slaves, forever free.[28] Hunter regarded this an act of military necessity, not an instrument of political import as General Fremont's proclamation in Missouri, for Hunter's forces were insufficient for offensive movements, and he was doing this as the first step toward training and arming Negroes within his lines. Assuming that the instructions of the War Department conferred the necessary authority he proclaimed the order without delay.

The news of this proclamation did not travel rapidly. It was published in the newspapers one week later, owing to the slow mail by sea from the South. By this means even Lincoln first learned of this decree, on account of which he was being assailed in many parts. When the news reached Lincoln he took decisive and prompt action. On May 19, he published a proclamation in which he revoked the order of emancipation and recited that the Government had no knowledge of such a decree nor had it authorized General Hunter to give such an order.[29]

Lincoln, however, used this occasion for an admonition to the border slave States, although he carefully distinguished between the limited powers of the commanders in the field and his full executive authority. He reminded the border States of the joint resolution passed by Congress, to authorize compensated emancipation, and he warned them not to neglect this opportunity to obtain financial indemnity, for the "signs of the times" were multiplying to a degree that should have convinced the border States that slavery was doomed.

In the very beginning of the Thirty-seventh Congress there came a series of antislavery measures which constituted a complete and decisive reversal of the policy of the Federal Government.[30] On March 13, 1862, Congress approved an act, which prohibited all military and naval officers and enlisted personnel from returning fugitive slaves. Section 10 of the Confiscation Act, virtually an amendment of the Fugitive Slave Law, which withheld from the claimant the right to use his authority until he had taken an oath of allegiance, and made it tantamount to a crime for any person in the army or navy to surrender a fugitive slave or attempt to validate the owner's claim, was rigidly enforced. Wishing to see Liberia and Haiti welcomed into the family of nations, moreover, Lincoln in his annual message in the previous December recommended the recognition of their independence and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the new nations. This resolution was passed by a Congress and approved June 5, 1862. Lincoln then effected the passage of a measure to carry into execution the treaty between Great Britain and the United States for the suppression of the African slave trade. Soon thereafter followed an act to secure freedom to all persons within the territories of the United States. The Republican party had thus carried out its platform by its restoration of the Missouri Compromise, its extension and application to all Territories, and as a logical result the rejection and condemnation of the Dred Scott decision and the subversive property theory of the secessionists.[31]

Then followed the Confiscation Act, the discussion of which was closely followed by Lincoln, who had his views incorporated therein by pointing out its defects and suggesting amendments. Whereas the act of August 6, 1861, freed slaves actually employed in military service, the new Confiscation Act of 1862 proved to be a law to destroy slavery under the powers of war. In conjunction with provisions for punishing treason or rebellion it declared free all slaves of persons guilty and convicted of these crimes, and provided that slaves deserted by rebels escaping from them or coming under control of the United States and slaves of rebels found on Union soil should be deemed captives and set free. Then again, there were enacted other provisions, which by implication permitted the employment of slaves in the United States army that they might work their own enfranchisement. Under this law the President was empowered to enroll and employ contrabands in such service as they were fitted for. Their mothers, wives, and children, if owned by rebels, should be declared free by virtue of such service. The eleventh section of the Confiscation Act authorized the President to employ as many Negroes as he might deem necessary for the suppression of the rebellion. The organization of the earliest Negro regiments resulted from this legislation.

Lincoln had some hesitation about signing this bill, however, for it had to be changed to conform to his views. But he signed it and also an anticipatory resolution of Congress to remedy its defects, placing himself on record by transmitting with his approval a copy of his intended veto, had certain defects remained. Mr. Lincoln objected to the expression that Congress could free a slave within a State, whereupon he suggested that it be changed to read that the ownership of the slave would be transferred to the nation, and that Congress would then liberate him.[32] The Democrats opposed this act, but antislavery opinion gained momentum by increasing accessions to the ranks of freedom and by that unusual ability of the highly talented patriotic membership of Congress. Yet to the proslavery element and the conservative Unionists, Lincoln's proposal of gradual compensated emancipation was a daring innovation upon practical politics. "In point of fact," say Nicolay and Hay, "the President stood sagaciously midway between headlong reform and blind reaction. His steady, cautious direction and control of the average public sentiment of the country alike held back rash experiment and spurred lagging opinion."[33]

Four months after Lincoln's proposal of compensated emancipation to the border slave States and its sanction by Congress, the situation seeming more complicated by the vicissitudes of war, Lincoln saw the necessity for uniting the sentiment of the North for a practical solution of the slavery problem. Looking forward into the future, therefore, Lincoln readily realized that the North must present a united front contending for a plain, practical policy, relative to things both political and military.

Consequently he again met the border State delegations on July 12, and made a second appeal to them to accept compensation for the emancipation of the slaves in their respective States while the opportunity was yet at hand.[34] He pointed out to them that the war would have been ended, had they considered the acceptance of the provisions of his first appeal for gradual emancipation, and that this plan would not be a slow and weak means of ending the war. Dissuading them from secession, he failed not to apprise them of the fact that, if the rebellion continued, their institution would be destroyed without any sort of indemnity or reparation. Again he referred to his revoking General Hunter's proclamation of military abolition, with the hope that he might possibly win them over to his plan, but his effort was futile. Most of them replied with a qualified refusal; twenty of them later presented a written reply, pledging themselves to continue loyal, but at the same time giving the reasons why they could not accept the plan of compensated emancipation.

In the meantime the capture of strategic points like Vicksburg and New Orleans had given the control of the lower Mississippi to the Union,[35] General Grant had crippled and driven back the Confederates in the West,[36] and prospects for military success in the East seemed to require some such a measure as military emancipation. After the refusal of compensated emancipation by the border slave States the President decided to emancipate the slaves of rebellious commonwealths by military order.[37] While riding with Mr. Seward and Mr. Welles one day, Mr. Lincoln made mention of emancipating the slaves by proclamation, if the rebels did not lay down their arms. He believed that such action could be guaranteed only as a military necessity. He thought that the slaves must be liberated, or the Union would be exterminated. Lincoln reached a final conclusion and called the cabinet together on July 21, the day preceding the close of that session of Congress.[38] Since he was at the end of his tether, he determined to take a more definite and decisive step. Accordingly, he prepared several orders which, gave authority to commanders in the field to subsist their troops in hostile territory and to employ Negroes as paid laborers, and further provided for the colonization of Negroes in some tropical country.[39]

As this discussion led to no definite conclusion, the subject was resumed at a meeting on the following day; but Lincoln decided that the time was inopportune. While he thought that more evil than good would be derived from the wholesale arming of Negroes, yet he was not unwilling that the commanders arm, purely for defensive purposes, those slaves who came within the Union lines. But the President had reached a decision on the correlated policy of emancipation with which it appears that his cabinet was not in accord. They were surprised when he read to them the first draft of a proclamation warning the rebels of the penalties provided by the Confiscation Act, suggesting the renewal of his proposition of compensation to the loyal States, and adding a summary order that, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, he would declare free the slaves of all States that might be in rebellion on January 1, 1863. The Cabinet was somewhat "bewildered by the magnitude and boldness of this proposal."[40]

Only two members of the cabinet concurred in the proposal. Secretary Chase favored this plan of military emancipation, but could not approve the method of execution. Blair, the Postmaster General, deprecated this policy on the ground that it would cost the administration the fall elections. Secretary Seward approved it and yet questioned the expediency of its issue at that stage of the war, owing to the depression of the public mind and the repeated reversals for the Union armies. He further deemed it to be a last measure of an exhausted government that was crying for help, stretching forth its arms to Ethiopia instead of awaiting a reverse appeal from Ethiopia. Consequently he urged a postponement of the issue of the proclamation until the country was supported by military success. Lincoln, struck by the wisdom of Seward's views, which he had entirely overlooked, laid it away and postponed the proclamation on July 22 until the Union forces reported a victory. Instead, after a three-day interval, he issued a short announcement that contained warnings as required by the provisions of the Confiscation Act.

Lincoln's postponement of the issue of the proclamation was wise. Military reversals made the situation more serious for the President's supporters. The radicals and the conservatives, resorted to incessant criticism, railing against him and his policy. Lincoln, however, kept up appearances of indecision, even though his own course had been clearly and inalterably mapped out; but circumstances did not admit a revelation. His main object was to restrain impatience and zeal, and yet maintain the loyalty of both factions.[41]

Horace Greeley attacked Lincoln unmercifully in The New York Tribune and accused him of being responsible for the deplorable results coming from his failure to enforce the Confiscation Act. Lincoln, on the contrary, lost no time in replying to Greeley, and declared that he intended to save the Union by the shortest possible way in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; that his paramount object in the struggle was to preserve the Union and not either to preserve or destroy slavery; that he would save the Union, either without liberating any slaves, or by freeing all the slaves, or by freeing some and leaving others in servitude; that, at any rate, he would save the Union; and that his efforts at emancipation would be determined by its bearing on the more important question of saving the Union.

The expected easy victory did not follow; but, on the contrary, came sad and humiliating defeat of Pope in the second battle of Bull Run in August, 1862. At this juncture Lincoln was urged by both individuals and delegations to follow one or the other decision relative to emancipation, but his attitude remained the same. On September 13, he informed a Chicago delegation that he was unable to free slaves by the Constitution, especially when the Constitution could not be enforced in the rebel States, and declared that any emancipation proclamation would at that time be as effective and operative as "the Pope's bull against the comet."[42] What the antislavery group wanted was not granted; but wholesale emancipation was going on by virtue of the provisions of the Confiscation Act, slavery had been abolished in the District of Columbia, and the territories had been restored to freedom. Lincoln, moreover, left himself a margin for action according to his declaration, in his interview with the Chicago delegation, that, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, he had the right to take any measure which might best subdue the enemy.[43]

Upon hearing of the Union victory at Antietam three days after, Lincoln immediately seized this opportunity to announce the policy upon which he had already decided. He had promised to withhold his Emancipation Proclamation until the rebels were out of Frederick. Now that they had been driven from Maryland and Pennsylvania, Lincoln was ready to carry out his plan. On September 22, 1862, therefore, he announced, read, and published his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.[44] It embraced propositions that provided for the renewal of the plan of compensated emancipation, voluntary colonization, military emancipation of all slaves in rebellious States on January 1, 1863, and the ultimate recommendation of compensation to loyal owners.

Although this proclamation was endorsed by an assembly of Governors from the Northern States, who had already convened at Altoona, Pennsylvania, to consider emergency measures for the protection of their respective States,[45] the political test of this announcement of military emancipation came, as expected, in the autumn elections. Popular discontent had arisen as the result of military failure. The Democrats boldly declared that the war of the Union had been changed to a war for abolition of slavery. Party conflicts became bitter and resulted in a loss to the Republicans although they still retained a majority.

In his next annual message, however, President Lincoln did not discuss the Emancipation Proclamation, but he renewed his argument for compensated emancipation. On December 11, 1862, George H. Yeaman of Kentucky introduced in the House of Representatives a resolution dubbing the President's proclamation as unwarranted by the Constitution and a useless and dangerous war message. This resolution was tabled by a vote of ninety-four to forty-five. Four days later Representative S. C. Fessenden of Maine, on the contrary, offered a resolution putting into affirmative form the identical phraseology of Mr. Yeaman's proposition, and secured its passage by a test vote of seventy-eight to fifty-four. No other action of consequence then followed except a manifestation of interest in compensated emancipation in Missouri.

At a cabinet meeting on the last day of December, 1862, Lincoln read the final draft of the Emancipation Proclamation and invited criticism. He made some revision of a minor nature but rejected the proposal to eliminate from the order the provision that the freedmen be armed. In this form the Proclamation was issued the following day, January 1, 1863. The constitutionality of this document has been questioned. It is conceded, however, that it did actually abolish slavery within the rebellious area and as a moral stimulus to the struggle for freedom, it proved to be of great value.

Harry S. Blackiston

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Edwards, History of Illinois, 179.

[2] Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, 72; W. H. Lamon, Life of Abraham Lincoln, 83.

[3] Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, 15, 140, 151, 642.

[4] Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, 148, 285-288.

[5] Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, 286.

[6] Ibid., I, 373, 375, 380-390.

[7] Ibid., I, pp. 391, 392.

[8] Nicolay and Hay, II, 85, 89.

[9] Nicolay and Hay, II, 136-138, 143.

[10] Nicolay and Hay, II, 137, 156, 157; Lincoln-Douglass Debates, p. 8.

[11] Nicolay and Hay, II, pp. 75, 147.

[12] Ibid., II, p. 149.

[13] Nicolay and Hay, II, 156, 157, 216.

[14] Murat Halstead, Conventions of 1860, 6.

[15] Ibid., 7.

[16] Nicolay and Hay, II, 255.

[17] Nicolay and Hay, II, 287, 382.

[18] Rhodes, United States, III, p. 357.

[19] Burgess, Civil War, II, p. 76.

[20] Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, IV, 416-420; V, p. 211.

[21] Burgess, Civil War, II, 79-80.

[22] Nicolay and Hay, V, 206.

[23] Nicolay and Hay, V, 207.

[24] Dodge, View, chap. xi.

[25] Nicolay and Hay, V, p. 209.

[26] McPherson, History of the Rebellion, p. 210.

[27] Nicolay and Hay, V, 214.

[28] Ibid., VI, p. 90.

[29] Nicolay and Hay, VI, 94-96.

[30] Ibid., VI, 97.

[31] Nicolay and Hay, VI, 99-100.

[32] Nicolay and Hay, VI, 103.

[33] Ibid., VI, 107.

[34] Ibid., VI, pp. 109-111.

[35] King, New Orleans, ch. xiii.

[36] Dodge, View, ch. x.

[37] Nicolay and Hay, VI, p. 121.

[38] Ibid., VI, pp. 123-124.

[39] Warden, Life of S. P. Chase, p. 439.

[40] F. B. Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, pp. 20-22.

[41] Dodge, View, ch. xiv. Rossiter Johnson, History of War of Secession.

[42] Nicolay and Hay, VI, 155.

[43] Dodge, View, pp. 102-115.

[44] Nicolay and Hay, VI, pp. 168-169.

[45] Nicolay and Hay, VI, p. 164.

---

THE JOURNAL OF ISAACO[1]

I

The time approaches when all the wildness of this little world will be overrun and tamed into the trimness of a civilized parterre; when the last trail will have been trodden, the mystery of the last forest bared, and the last of the savage peoples penned into a League of Nations to die of unnatural peace. What will our children do then, I wonder, for their books of high romance? How satisfy their thirst of daring with nothing further to dare? Who will appease them, when

"The Rudyards cease from kipling
And the Haggards ride no more,"

when Robinson Crusoe and the classics are once read, and in a hencoop world no saga-man arises in their stead? They say that by then we shall have enlarged our borders and gone in our chariots of petrol to visit the wheeling stars. But I misdoubt these Icarian flights. It seems to me more likely that the harassed parents and publishers of those days will be driven earthward to rummage into the lumber of the past and bring out as new the obscure things that a former more heroic age had buried. In those stricken times, I hope someone may have the fortune to light upon my manuscript Journal of Isaaco, a slim, alluring folio that now glitters in red-and-gold upon my study shelves. It would be a pity if Time, the All-Merciless, were allowed to throw the dust of oblivion over these pretty pages, for they possess in good measure that trait of "pleasant atrocity" which wins the attention of youth.

But who was Isaaco, and what was his Journal that it calls for the popularity of print? Those who have followed the harrowing tale of Mungo Park's Travels along the River Niger, in the years 1795 to 1797, and again in the fatal expedition of 1805, will be well acquainted with Isaaco. They will have smiled at his childish tempers, applauded his snakelike cunning, and laughed outright at his heathen superstitions. But the others must be gravely informed that Isaaco was a West African of the Mandingo tribe who was wont for dignity's sake to describe himself as a Mohammedan priest. Certainly he had the Pentecostal gift of tongues, for there was hardly a dialect of Bambouk, Fool-adoo, Jallonkadoo, Timbuctoo, and all the other tribes of Senegal and beyond, but he could deceive the wiliest natives in it. Moreover, as a professional guide he found it paid to keep a wife in every petty state. At the worst she served to exercise the tongue; at the best she was provisioner, geographer, and spy. Never tired, never sick, never at a loss, Isaaco was simply indispensable to the European merchants trading in Senegal. So, indeed, was he to Mungo Park, that doughtiest of Scotsmen, who dared on through Bambarra and Haoussa where no white-face had ever been. Without Isaaco's genius and gigantic strength, it is unlikely that the second expedition (in 1805) would ever have reached the Niger. It was Isaaco who nursed the forty brave men who one by one sickened of dysentery; supported them on their mules, even in delirium, when they cried like children for their homes; and buried them at the last with saphies or charms from the Koran over their unmarked graves. It was he who watched, while the others slept the dead sleep of exhaustion; piled up the camp-fires to scare off the lions and wolves, and, worse than the wolves, those thieves and murderers (the scum of Senegal) who ever dogged their steps. None like Isaaco could placate each chieftain with the gift that his soul desired (be it cowries, beads, looking-glasses, muskets, or multi-colored waistcoats); nor when these failed, could any but Isaaco win passports with the mere honey of his tongue. Nothing could swerve him from honesty or the performance of his task. He was tied to a tree and flogged in the presence of his local wife, set upon by the very white men he was serving, stung all over by a swarm of bees, and mauled in both thighs by a crocodile; but each time he turned up smiling and ready to go on. Nothing could stop him, for did he not keep the solemn ritual of the guides, sacrificing a black ram at the threshold of every country they entered, drawing the magic triangles and hieroglyphs on the sand of every desert they had to cross, and keeping fast in his scrip that lock of a white man's hair, which added all the knowledge of a European to the African natives who possessed it?[2]

II

The agreement of Isaaco was to guide the expedition to the Niger, whence it was to proceed under the direction of Amady Fatouma, another guide. Accordingly, when Sansanding was reached, Isaaco's work was accomplished. Some days he lingered to load the great canoe (large enough to carry a hundred men). In the evenings he taught Mungo Park the names of the necessaries of life in the tongues of the countries ahead. Then he took a last farewell of his master and carried back to the coast that famous letter to Lord Camden, the concluding lines of which are engraved below the writer's statue in the city of Edinburgh: "My dear friends Mr. Anderson and likewise Mr. Scott are both dead; but, though all Europeans who were with me should die, and though I were myself half dead, I would still persevere; and if I could not succeed in the object of my journey I would at least die on the Niger."

One by one the months wore on and no news came from the Niger. But in the next year (1806) there began to be rumors of a great disaster. Still nothing definite was heard, and Mungo Park's wife and his many friends hoped on. They knew his marvellous hardihood and resource, and that of the stalwart Scotsmen who were with him. In 1810, however, the Government, who were responsible for the second expedition, thought it time to inquire what had befallen it; so they told the Governor of Senegal to find Isaaco and offer him £1,000 to explore after the explorer and put all doubts at rest. Now the manuscript which I possess, and of which a précis follows, is Isaaco's account of his travels in search of Mungo Park, by which he earned his thousand pounds and did the last sad offices to his master's memory. In my judgment it contains as much of the spirit of adventure as Mungo Park's own journals, and, being written by a native, gets nearer to the life and mind of the African Negro than any white man, writing from outside, could hope to do. For that reason I often wonder why the successive editors of Park's Travels have passed it over, printing only the last page or two, wherein Amady Fatouma relates the explorer's end. One thing I know has been against its adoption, to wit, an insufferably dull style. Seeing that it is difficult to be dull in the Arabic tongue, and that it was impossible for Isaaco to be so in any of the tongues he used, I suspect the English translator (no doubt a mere clerk in Governor Maxwell's Office) of pruning away the flowers of speech, and making all as prim and exact as an affidavit. Or possibly Isaaco simulated dullness. He meant to have that thousand pounds, and could afford to take no risks. A tropical, luxuriant style would certainly have put his credibility in question. As it was, many of the learned societies doubted his word, and one of them roundly asserted that he had sat outside Senegal and fabricated at ease the history of his travels. It was only after Bowditch, Denham, Clapperton, and Landor had explored after the explorer that Isaaco's credit was established and the learned societies put to shame.

In the abridgment that follows I have tried to preserve not only the spirit, but wherever possible the very words, of Isaaco's manuscript Journal. Whatever has been discarded is of little consequence and of less grammar.

III

Isaaco left Senegal by ship on the 22d day of the Moon Tabasky (January 7th) in the year 1810; but apparently the moon was not propitious, for he was nearly cast away in the lighter, trying to cross the bar, and in the ensuing confusion the larger part of his baggage was stolen. When he discovered this two days later at Goree and attempted to return, the winds rose and tossed the vessel about for nine days and drove him back to Goree. After some negotiation with Governor Maxwell by courier, the baggage was rescued and sent to Isaaco by road. The next few pages of his Journal are difficult and barren reading, bristling with nothing but the uncouth names of places where the good ship passed or anchored for the night, and with the hours duly entered as in a log book, according to the Mohammedan hours of prayer. Sailing by way of Yoummy, Jillifrey, Tancrowaly, and Jaunimmarou, they came on the eighth day to Mariancounda, where Isaaco landed. This was the home of Dr. Robert Ainsley, who had so often befriended Mungo Park, fitted him out with the necessaries of life, and started each expedition on its way. Under the same hospitable roof Isaaco lodged for the inside of a week, and then, enriched with the gift of a horse and an ass and twenty bars of beads, went into the wilds to search for the fate of his master. To open the road through Giammalocoto and Tandacounda, Isaaco wisely paid court to the King of Cataba, and showered upon him an old musket and a string of amber of the quality No. 4. The next halt was at Sandougoumanna under a tamarisk tree (Isaaco always notes the trees under which he sleeps). From the shade of this in the early morning he sent presents to the kings who barred the way; tobacco to him of Sallatigua, and scarlet cloth to him of Mansangcoije. Three villages on, Isaaco's company was suddenly increased by members of his own family, fleeing before the army of Bambarra—all but his mother, who had refused to leave her kraal. Three days later he was with her, in his native place of Montogou, and there stayed forty days, whether carousing, or fighting, or praying, he does not say. Then, prudently burying his heavy luggage, he departed, still carrying his people with him—through Moundoundou, where the chief killed a sheep in his honor and was rewarded with a flask of powder—on through Couchiar, a sleepy sort of place by name and situation, with a spreading bark tree, beneath which he drowsed the length of a day—on to Saabic, a village solely inhabited by Maraboos or priests. To gain the goodwill of Allah, he dwelt there a few days, and discovered a relation of one of his wives (no rare occurrence, seeing how many he kept) whose heart he rejoiced with some gunpowder and a gay piece of cloth. At the very next village, Tallimangoly, he fell across another, who cost him three grains of amber. Indeed, it seemed as though his store of presents would never hold out; for, no sooner had he digested the sheep his cousin killed for him, than the Bambarra army came up, and with fear and trembling Isaaco must needs dole out a whole heap of stuff—10 flasks of powder, 13 grains of amber (this time No. 1), 2 grains of coral (No. 1) and a handsome tin box. These to the King. And the King's chamberlain, goldsmith, and singing men had to be tipped as well.[3]

IV

So they paid their way through Sangnonagagy and Saamcolo (where there was a "grand palaver" to rescue Isaaco's dog, which had bitten a man and been condemned to die), on to Diggichoucoumee, a place as long as its name, which took them four days to get through. It took still longer to get clear of the next village of Dramana, for the family of one of his wives came up and bitterly opposed her going with him on a journey so hazardous. There was another "grand palaver." In the end Isaaco lost his temper and divorced his wife; and, as the law required her to return what she had received at marriage, he came rather well out of it—to be exact, with a bullock and four sheep. A little further on Isaaco met an Arab with an exceptionally fine mare, which he bought with his wife's dowry and so consoled himself. He found the mare more tractable than a wife with obstinate relations. After this episode the pace of the party mended. Numbers of villages with unpronounceable names were hurried through. The river Senegal was crossed, and a country entered, that of Bambarra, where only women could be found. Every man, even the children and the aged, had gone away with the army. At the ill-sounding place Ourigiague, just beyond, they were royally entertained. A whole bullock was roasted for them. So, too, at Medina, where they were forced to waste twelve days and devour five sheep, because one of Isaaco's servants made off with the aforesaid mare and Isaaco's precious musket. A trustier servant was despatched on his trail. In due time he returned with the mare and the musket, and preferred not to say what had happened to the thief. The petty kingdom of Casso, which they came to next, proved very trying. There were six rivers to cross, full (says Isaaco) of alligators and hippopotami. There was the forbidding rock of Tap-Pa in the desert of Maretoumane to get by. And there was the mountain of Lambatara, on the top of which they were attacked by a cloud of bees. Maddened with the stings, the Negroes ran everywhere; the mules broke loose and threw their packs down the hill. Poor Isaaco had to collect them all, physick the dying and distressed, and number the living and the lost. At nightfall he slept like a log "under a monkey-bread tree." The following day was darkened by an ominous message from the King of Bambarra. There was evidently trouble brewing ahead. To gain some friendship in the capital, Isaaco decided to bribe. To Sabila, the Chief of the King's slaves, he sent a pair of scissors, a snuff-box, and a looking-glass, and desired to be his friend. And to his old friend Allasana Bosiara, then ambassador at Bambarra from the King of Sego, he sent a piece of silver "as a mark of being near him," and begged him not to leave until he was in safety. As he drew nearer, other signs made Isaaco convinced that "something unpleasant was planning." He was refused lodgings and water by the chiefs. A friendly merchant who had travelled under his protection was secretly warned to take himself and his goods away before it was too late. Thereupon Isaaco retired to another monkey-bread tree, ringed his little company about with muskets, double-barrelled guns, and assegais and "waited for what should happen." The following morning the King tempted them away with the friendliest of welcomes and gave them lodging and water at Wassaba, near the Royal Palace. His suggestion, however, that Isaaco should sleep separately from his people, was courteously but firmly declined. Indeed, Isaaco left nothing to chance. He first fortified the lodgings assigned to him, and then set out to find Sabila. But the King's spies who dogged his steps gave him the wrong directions, and at last he abandoned the quest. It seemed clear that Sabila did not wish him well. The next day the King sent word that he would like to see Isaaco. It had to be. Taking his life in his hands, as he had done a thousand times before, the old guide mounted his horse and rode off to the royal quarters. On the way, a friend whispered to him that he was betrayed; and on no account must he tell the King that he was bound with presents to the King of Sego; for there was not a being he hated and feared so much as that monarch, who usurped his rightful throne. "But," replied Isaaco, "he knows already I am bound there. To Sego I was sent and to Sego I must go unless force or death prevents." Arrived at the King's door, Isaaco was told that he was sleeping (yet another ruse) and that he must remain in the guard-room. It was then about sunset. For hours Isaaco waited, but the King slept on and not a soul of Isaaco's friends in the capital came to relieve his suspense. They knew he was marked down to die. "The only person," he writes, "who came to comfort me was a Griot, that is, a dancing woman. On leaving me she went, as I afterwards learned, to the Ambassadors of Sego and said to them: 'Oh! me, oh! me, my back is broke (which is an expression of sorrow among the Cassoukes). They are going to kill Isaaco.'"

V

Meantime, as the guards were dancing, singing, and drinking, Isaaco stole out unperceived and made good use of his time. To the keeper of the inn, with whom he had formerly stayed, and who had some influence with the King, he gave one of his wives' necklaces and seven grains of coral. From him he went to Madiguijou, a Counsellor of State, explained his mission to Sego, and hinted what Governor Maxwell would do if he were put to death. He even crept into Sabila's hut, and told him the same thing; but the chief of the slaves smiled and promised nothing. Isaaco plied him with more amber No. 1, but he "smiled and smiled and still remained a villain." Then Isaaco thought it wiser to get back into the guard-room, before the drunken soldiers grew sober and looked for him. In the morning he played his last card by getting into touch with the Ambassadors from Sego. These distinguished gentlemen were by no means eager to take on the burden of his protection, but Isaaco bade them know that the present which Mungo Park had promised King Mansong, he (Isaaco) was commissioned to bring to their King Dacha, his son. If they were determined to go without him, they might do so; but whether he lived or died they should hear of it at Sego. That fetched them. They were by no means pleased with the picture Isaaco drew of their sufferings, and proceeded to save themselves by saving him. As the King their master could simply eat up the King of Bambarra and his army at one swallow, they commanded the release of Isaaco and twenty men to conduct him on his way. At this peremptory message, King Figuing Coroba found it politic to wake, and summoned Isaaco to his presence. The latter obeyed, went through the highest salutations, and proffered a tin box by way of asking: "Is it peace?" But there was no sign of peace. The King suddenly lost his temper, raged at the King of Sego, and, swearing he would seize everything Isaaco possessed, hurled the tin box at his head. Isaaco discreetly withdrew, while Sabila promised to pour oil on the troubled waters. The next day Isaaco, not the least daunted, presented himself with the aforesaid tin box and in addition a quantity of amber, and gunpowder, and the horse Robert Ainsley had given him. Sabila was bribed once more, and the King's singer was won over with a snuff-box. At the sight of his share, the King's anger melted like wax, and he not only gave Isaaco leave to depart that same day, but promised an escort too.... Isaaco coolly answered that he was in no hurry and would wait a day or two—an exhibition of nerve that quite astonished the King. "You see," he said to Sabila, "Isaaco appears to be a courageous man. If he had been of a weak-spirited mind, he would have run away and left his things in my hands." To confirm his friendship, the King called up the heir to the throne, and made him swear protection to Isaaco, an oath which the Prince hinted should be cemented by the gift of a cousaba or shirt. But Isaaco delicately replied that he had none quite clean enough to present. When he returned to his own country, he swore to bring him a new one. So Isaaco triumphed and returned to his own people, who were mourning him as dead. Nor did he come empty-handed, for he met a man on the way who wanted a priestly charm or amulet (grisgris). Isaaco scribbled an Arabic prayer on a leaf and received a bullock in exchange. This he slaughtered forthwith, feasted his large family, and made a sacrifice of thanksgiving to his god.

VI

Three days after this distressing delay, Isaaco set out for Sego, and was brought in safety to the end of the Bambarra dominions. For further guidance he then hired four promising natives; but, having landed the party in the midst of a gloomy forest, they grew superstitious and ran away. "I was much disappointed," says the mild Isaaco, "at their behavior." More likely he was speechless with rage.[4] But there was nothing to do but to press on, and that they did through forest and desert to the lakes of Chicare and Tirium. As they reached the mud-walled village of Giangounta, one of the fatting pigs, which were to be given to King Dacha, became too fat to carry. Isaaco begged the chief of the village to look after it until it could be fetched, but he objected, "being afraid to take charge of an unknown animal." However, Isaaco explained all about its ways, wrote a grisgris to ward off all evil, and dumped it on the still-astonished hamlet. Thence over more lakes by canoe, through Toucha, where they found the trees from which African gunpowder was made, and by a great pyramid with a large stone on its head, where the murderous Moors lie in wait. Going by night to avoid them, Isaaco did not till day discover that one of his servants had made off with his box of jewellery and his one and only cousaba. Then he swore as only a Mohammedan priest can, and rode after the thief. In three days he was back with the felon, whose death penalty he postponed for a time on condition that he carried the remaining pig into Sego. At Sannanba, Isaaco found again the sister and the wife he had left there five years before. He seems to have quite forgotten them; but they had faithfully waited his return, knowing that nothing would kill him. It was from them that he first learnt that Mungo Park was dead. They had seen Alhaji Beraim,[5] who had been shown the canoe in the country of Haoussa, where Park met his end. However, Isaaco was determined to go on and learn for himself on the spot. So he dismissed his sister with a piece of muslin, took on the wife, and released the prisoner, for (he says) "I was certain, once in the King's power, he would be put to death." At Counnow, a little further along the road, Isaaco came upon "an enormous large tree inhabited by a large number of bats. Another such tree lies on the west of the village, likewise full of bats; but what is most extraordinary, the bats of the east constantly go at night to the west, and return to the east at the approach of day; those of the west never go to the east. And the natives say their lawful King (Figuing Coroba who had been driven out to the petty kingdom of Bambarra) lies upon the west."

Impressing four men of every district to carry the pig to the next, Isaaco journeyed on through Dedougou, Issicord, and five other villages, all deserted. At Yamina, one of the women slaves whom Isaaco had redeemed, and who had followed his expedition, found her long-lost husband. There was much rejoicing and dancing and exchange of presents all round. Then after crossing the Niger at Jolliba, they struck Sego Coro, the ancient palace of the kings, where to that day (and possibly to this) the King resorted when war was declared, to have his amulets prepared, and don his forefathers' armor. There, too, the royal prisoners were wont to be brought for confinement until the fasting moon, and then cruelly murdered in the House of Death. For eight days after it was against the law for anyone to pass the house without putting off his hat and shoes. In the reign of the great warrior-king, Walloo, not a moon passed without the sacrifice of blood.

VII

The next day Isaaco was summoned to the presence of the King, who scented his presents from afar. Indeed the royal message was concerned only with the pigs: they were to be brought in the same ingenious manner by which Isaaco had tied them for transit. In this fashion then, with the swine, like peace-offerings, suspended in advance, Isaaco's motley company, begrimed with eight months' travel, came straggling into Sego.

Encircled with his companies of guards, "young, strong, and beardless," the great King Dacha squatted on the ground. Behind and beside him, standing upright in the earth, glittered the four broadswords which Mungo Park had given. As a sign that he had loosed his hounds of war, the King was dressed in his military coat, shining with countless amulets of gold. In the wild flaming sky burned the remnants of the storm which had just driven him back from Douabougou. So squatted King Dacha, and with royal impassive face, showing no mark of the boiling curiosity within, stared at those unknown animals, the swine. Hard on their heels shuffled Isaaco, himself also on all fours in a deep obeisance. Behind him the bearers of the inevitable bribes: a drum, two blunderbusses, a bed, a piece of scarlet cloth, and a solitary dog. (There should have been another, but it had bolted far back at Mariancounda.) Then said Isaaco: "Maxwell, Governor of Senegal, salutes you and sends his compliments to you. Here is the present your father asked of Mr. Park and which he promised to send him." "Is the Governor well?" asked Dacha. "Yes," replied Isaaco, "he is well and desired me to beg your assistance to discover what has become of Mr. Park. We would know if he is dead or alive." After these civilities they fell to business, and Isaaco bargained for a canoe to row as far as needful down the Niger. The King hesitated over the Governor's offer of two hundred bars, for was he not far enough away to break his word? But when the two pigs got loose and waddled about, he became as happy as a child, and was no more trouble to Isaaco. To confirm his goodwill, he killed a bullock for him, and begged him to remain as his guest throughout the remainder of that moon. After a fortnight's festivities, Isaaco was preparing to depart, when the King's mind was suddenly turned another way. A message was brought in that the Prince of Timbuctoo was at hand and desired an audience. King Dacha scowled. Then he leapt to his feet, summoned his 600 guards, and went out in full war-paint to meet him. The Prince rode up airily and said: "Being a friend of your father, I thought it my duty to let you know of my coming to take a wife, promised to me in your tribe." "And why," asked Dacha in his dreadful voice, "why have you permitted the people of your country to plunder one of my caravans, and why did you yourself plunder another?"

With no more said, the King returned to his kraal. It was from others the Prince learned that the merchants of the caravans had denounced him before the King, that his betrothed had been given to another, and that he was in danger of being plundered of his life. With almost indecent haste he despatched three horses to the King, gave pieces of colored stuff to all the captains of the guards, and slunk back ashamed to Timbuctoo. But King Dacha was so furiously enraged, he could neither stay in his kraal nor allow Isaaco to take leave. Away he rode to Impelbara and Banangcoro, with Isaaco trailing behind, very much out of temper and somewhat out of breath. It seemed, as the chief slave tried to explain, that when the King was angry, he pacified himself by visiting his children. Apparently he visited his wrath on them. Isaaco groaned and wondered how many there might be, and in what score of villages they dwelt apart. But he cheered up when they told him the legitimate children were six. There had been more, but by an ancient law of Sego, if a male child was born of one of the King's wives upon a Friday, its throat was cut immediately. This had accounted for three. After a decent interval, Isaaco made it known to the King that he also was very angry, and demanded to have his canoe and go after Mungo Park. The King then sent for him, apologized for forgetting all about him, and pointed in justification to the pigs, which, like a good father, he had brought along to please the children. He himself could hardly keep his eyes off such fat and unusually happy creatures. The next day Isaaco pressed the bargain, and, though it was Friday, steered away in the King's canoe for Sansanding, where he had parted from Mungo Park. And then, with the prospect of hundreds of miles in hostile country before him, he had a stroke of good fortune; for in the next village of Medina, whom should he run against but Amady Fatouma! As one might expect, Isaaco nailed him to the spot with a hundred questions. Poor Amady began to weep. "They are all dead," he sobbed. Isaaco demanded to know when and where and why. "They are all dead," the guide repeated. "They are lost for ever. It is no use asking. It is no good looking for what is irrecoverably lost." Like a sensible man, Isaaco checked the ardor of his curiosity. It certainly was hopeless to ply Amady with questions; his tears threatened to flood the Niger; it was not safe to stay there. So Isaaco gave him a day or two to subside, and arranged a meeting higher up the river.

VIII

Amady's tale has often been printed, and there is no need here to repeat anything but essentials; his padding is even more woolly than Isaaco's. In the great canoe,[6] which Isaaco had helped to load before departing, Mungo Park rowed away on November 17th, 1805, with the survivors of his company of forty, namely, four white men and five Negroes, including Amady, for crew. From the very outset the voyage proved unpropitious. Almost every village they passed on the river bank came out against them in canoes, armed with bows and arrows, pikes and assegais. Each member of the crew kept fifteen muskets in action; to kill and kill was the only chance of forcing a passage through. There was no Isaaco to try the magic of conciliation. Once indeed, when they had beaten off sixty canoes with appalling slaughter, Amady ventured to remonstrate. "Martin," he said, taking hold of his arm, "let us cease firing: we have killed too many already." "On which," he comments, "Martin wanted to kill me and would have done so had not Mr. Park intervened." The troubles thickened. The news of their coming had evidently been spread in advance. Just beyond Gotoigega they encountered a whole army, comprised of the Poule nation, such beasts themselves, that (says Amady) they possess no beasts of any other kind. They were suffered to go by in ominous silence—only to fall foul of a squadron of hippopotami, who nearly washed them over. At an island just beyond, Amady was landed to forage for milk; but there was no milk to be had, not even the milk of human kindness. The natives took him prisoner and decided he should be done to death. But Mungo Park was watching; and by a fortunate chance two canoes full of natives, bringing fresh provisions for sale, had come alongside at that moment. Mungo Park made it abundantly clear that he would kill every man-jack of them if a hair of Amady's head were touched. So the prisoners were exchanged. It was a narrow escape for Amady; and the uneasiness it caused was increased by the constant cries from the shore, "Amady Fatouma, how can you pass through our country without giving us anything?" "I seriously promised," he observed, "never to pass there again without making considerable charitable donations to the poor." As they came to the frontiers of Haoussa another large army of Moors watched them from a mountain. Fortunately they had no fire-arms, and could do no harm. On reaching Yaour, the first place of any size in Haoussa, Amady was landed, as his bargain was to bring the party only so far. In addition to his pay, he conveyed Mungo Park's presents to the King; but, instead of delivering these in person, gave them to the Chieftain of Yaour, who promised to forward them. A little slip, it seems, but fraught with deadly consequence. The Chieftain, finding out from Mungo Park that he did not intend to return that way, determined to keep the presents for himself. The next morning, as Amady was paying his court to the King and expecting the presents to come, two horsemen rode in from Yaour and said: "We are sent from the Chief to let you know that the white men went away without giving you or him anything. They have a great many things with them and have given nothing. This Amady Fatouma now before you is a bad man, and has made a fool of you." Poor Amady was forthwith put in irons and all his goods confiscated, with the exception of his Arabic charms, which they dared not touch. The next morning the King sent his army to Boussa and posted it on a rock which straddled the width of the river, leaving only a narrow opening for the current to race through. Mungo Park, seeing the danger, nevertheless resolved to force a passage. But the odds were terrific. It took half the men to keep the canoe moving against the current, while the rest fired at the enemy as they hurled stones and assegais upon their heads. At last the two steersmen were slain, and the canoe went adrift. In a desperate attempt to lighten it, they cast all the baggage into the river, but still could make no headway. Overpowered by numbers and fatigue, and with no chance of killing a whole army, they saw but one hope of escape—namely, to make for the shore and get away into the bush. Taking hold of one of the white men, Mungo Park leapt into the river, Martin, with another white man, following after; but, fine swimmers as they were, the current proved too strong for them and all four were drowned. The one Negro left in the canoe surrendered, and both he and the canoe were dragged to shore and carried to the King.

After being kept three months in irons, Amady was released and in part consoled with a concubine. But he made it his first business before departing to visit the slave taken in the canoe, and learn from him the sad details of Mungo Park's destruction. The only thing that was found in the canoe after its capture was a sword belt which the King used as a saddle-girth for his horse.

IX

Such was Amady Fatouma's tale, that Isaaco had journeyed for nine months to hear. And as he was a "good, honest, and upright man" and had sworn truth upon the Koran, there was nothing to do but believe and carry back the mournful tidings. To make "assurance double sure," Isaaco sent to Yaour a native who bribed a slave girl to steal the sword belt from the king's charger. Then, passing homeward through Sego, he told the news to Dacha, who was so furious that he despatched his army to wipe the country of Haoussa off the face of the earth. But Isaaco set his face for Senegal, to exchange his Arabic Journal for a thousand pounds.

Louis N. Feipel

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Extract from The Cream of Curiosity, by Reginald L. Hine, 1920, pp. 291-316.

[2] To this day no news has reached England of Isaaco's death, and indeed after all he survived it seems impossible that he should ever die.

[3] Isaaco was better able to appreciate their music than Mungo Park. In one item of his accounts, the latter writes: "To the native singers for singing their nonsense."

[4] It must be remembered that Isaaco was writing a government report and careful to suppress all signs of indecorum. What a heap of money one would give to possess his private, unexpurgated journal!

[5] A priest of Yaour to whom Amady Fatouma, the guide, had given a small present from Mungo Park.

[6] Mansong had sold it to Park for a quantity of firearms. It was half rotten and took eighteen days to make water-tight. Forty feet long by six broad and flat-bottomed. They christened it "His Majesty's Schooner Joliba."

---

COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. A. A. Taylor, who contributed the article on Negro Congressmen a Generation After in the April number, recently received from Mr. Henry A. Wallace, a participant in the Reconstruction in South Carolina, the following important letter:

326 Flower St.,
Chester, Pa.,
April 19, 1922.

Prof. A. A. Taylor,
The West Virginia Collegiate Institute, Institute, W. Va.

Dear Sir: I am still confined to the house, not having been outside since the last week of December. When we get some good sunshiny weather I will venture out. I am writing this to let you know how much I enjoyed reading your very interesting article "Negro Congressmen a Generation After," in the April number of The Journal of Negro History. This article and Dr. Woodson's "Fifty Years of Negro Citizenship as Qualified by the United States Supreme Court" are worth the subscription price to The Journal.

As your article is now in permanent form and no doubt will be quoted frequently, there are one or two little slips that I would like to invite your attention to, feeling that you, like myself, believe in accuracy.

On page 130, foot note relative to Mr. Rainey you have not included his service in the 41st Congress. He was seated in that Congress on December 12, 1870, to succeed Mr. Whittemore, who was unseated on account of a serious charge brought against him. Mr. Rainey was the first Negro Congressman. Mr. Long was seated in the same Congress, but later—January 16, 1871. This would give Mr. Rainey a record of five Congresses. On the same page (130) foot note relative to General Smalls, you have him as a member of five Congresses. My record does not show him a member of the 47th Congress. Mr. Rainey holds the record for length of service. In connection with Mr. Rainey's record I will state that he was the only one of the Negro congressmen who presided over the House of Representatives, that courtesy was extended to him by Speaker Blaine. Altho the House was democratic he was honored by the Republican caucus at one time for Clerkship of the House, showing the esteem in which he was held by his colleagues, after he retired from the House. Page 134—High Hollow Academy should be High Holborn Academy. On the same page, foot note, it is stated that Gen. Elliott resigned from Congress to accept the office of sheriff. While Gen. Elliott had his official residence in Aiken county, he and Mrs. Elliott had their home in Columbia, one of the show places of the city. I cannot conceive of him resigning the position of congressman to accept the insignificant office of sheriff of the small county of Aiken. He resigned in order to go to the House of Representatives at Columbia for the purpose of being elected Speaker of that body, and he succeeded. The other time he resigned was for the purpose of being a candidate for the U. S. Senatorship, but the Pennsylvania R. R. interests put John J. Patterson, who was a Cameron protege, over. Had he been elected sheriff of Aiken county it would have necessitated his living there.

On page 139—"From the year 1871—the period of service of the first Negro in Congress" should be 1870—Rainey, Dec. 12, 1870.

The greatest compliment I think that was ever paid to a Negro by a prominent white man was that by Benjamin F. Butler, the distinguished Union General, afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, and who had charge of Sumner's civil rights bill in the House of Representatives. In the prefatory remarks to his speech on the day following the great speech made by Gen. Elliott on the same bill, he said:

"I should have considered more at length the constitutional argument, were it not for the exhaustive presentation by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Elliott) of the law, and the only law quoted against us in this case that has been cited, to wit, the Slaughter-House cases. He, with the true instinct of freedom, with a grasp of mind that shows him to be the peer of any man on this floor, be he who he may, has given the full strength and full power of that decision of the Supreme Court."

Garfield, Cannon, Frye, Hale, Hawley, Hoar (Geo. F.), Platt, Dawes, Phelps, Lamar, Beck, Stephens (A. H.), Randall, Mills, Cox, and Barnum, were among the prominent members of the House at that time, many of whom afterwards reached the Senate, and Garfield, the presidency. General Butler was considered one of the great constitutional lawyers of that period.

The following relative to Senator Bruce and Mr. Langston may interest you if you have not already heard of the incidents:

It is always customary when a new Senator appears with his credentials for his colleague to escort him to the Vice-President's desk to be sworn in. When Senator Bruce presented himself, his colleague, Senator Alcorn, was not present. Senator Roscoe Conkling taking in the situation, walked over to Senator Bruce and escorted him up the aisle and the oath was administered. For this gracious act Senator Bruce named his son, recently of Washington, after the distinguished senator from New York.

As Mr. Venable, the democrat, was given the certificate of election by the Virginia officials for the Congressional seat, Mr. Langston made the contest. The Committee on privileges and elections voted in favor of Mr. Langston. When the time set for action on the case arrived, the whole democratic membership withdrew from the House, thinking that they would catch the Republicans napping and without a quorom, the republican majority being small. The Republicans, however, got wind of what the Democrats were doing and had all of their members rounded up. They not only seated Mr. Langston but the chairman of the elections committee took advantage of the absence of the Democrats and called up the case of Miller versus Elliott from South Carolina and then seated Miller, though the case was not slated for that time. The feelings of the Democrats can be better imagined than described when they returned to the House and found two of their colleagues unseated and two Negro Congressmen seated in their places. The Democrats never again resorted to such tactics.

Very respectfully,
Henry A. Wallace.

---

DOCUMENTS

The following extracts from the Daily Record, Greensboro, North Carolina, February 2nd and 3rd, 1911, setting forth the reminiscences of Captain Ball, a participant in the Reconstruction of the Southern States, gives valuable information as to the troublous times of that period:

New York, Feb. 2.—I have now told nearly all of the authenticated facts concerning the Stephens murder; the rest is merely speculative. There have been stories coming from the negroes which are interesting, even if not strictly true. A negro has quite an imagination. I will relate some of these stories, without expressing an opinion, leaving others to decide as to their accuracy and naturalness.

Much of what follows comes from Governor Holden, at the time an aged man, retired (perhaps not voluntarily) from public life. The tendency of his political opinions in his later years was toward "Conservation." I called upon him in February, 1885 (twenty-six years ago) and took notes of what he said, because of its inherent interest. His memory was clear and comprehensive. While governor—he was elected by the Republicans in 1868—and before his impeachment and removal from office by the Democratic legislature of 1870, he sought to unravel the mysteries of the Kuklux brotherhoods; and tried in every way to discover the perpetrators of the Stephens assassination.

It has already been stated that Stephens, on the fatal Saturday, was in attendance upon a Conservative meeting in Yanceyville, and that he went out of it with Wiley. It is reported that Wiley, on his way home, took supper at the house of a Mr. Poteat. Now the negroes are not only full of curiosity, but take risks to gratify it. Nothing was more common than for them to listen from behind doors, through keyholes and in the corners of the houses where they were employed as servants. Thus it happened that the conversation at the supper-table at Poteat's—so the story goes—was overheard by a negro woman (and other servants), who had been waiting upon the table, and a most pitiful recital it was! The servants had retired from the dining-room, and being in the passage way, outside, and hearing Stephens's name called, they listened.

Governor Holden said that Wiley was speaking of how Stephens had been killed that day; that he (Wiley) had done a good day's work and that he, and the others, had toled (that is enticed) Stephens down stairs to talk with Wiley about being a candidate for sheriff; that they got Stephens to the door and threw the noose over his neck and dragged him inside, and choked him down; that while this was going on, in the room below, old man Bedford Brown was making a speech up-stairs, and the applause was continuous, to drown any outcry; that after Stephens was choked the noose was loosened, as they wished if possible not to kill him; that he was told if he would denounce the Republican party and leave the State, they would spare his life; that he refused and said he would die first; that he then begged them, as their purpose was to kill him, to let him go and see his family; that he said to them, "Gentlemen, you know me, that I am a man of my word and will come back;" that they refused his request; that he then begged them to let him take a last look of his house; that they led him to the window, holding the rope behind him, and he saw his children playing upon the green; that they told him his time was up and pulled him back and again choked him down upon the table; that they loosened the rope when he said, "Gentlemen, I surrender—spare my life and I will do anything you say;" that a young man (whose name I will not give, as Governor Holden gave it to me) said, "No, damn you, you die," and struck him with his knife on his throat and vest, and then they finished him. The negro woman, horrified as she listened, upon hearing all this, exclaimed aloud, "There, by God!"

The supper party heard her words and the story ceased. Wiley left almost immediately; and then they asked the old woman why she said those words and she told them, "because the coffee burned her." They asked her if she had been listening and she declared she had not.

Next day, a younger brother of Poteat sent for her to work in his tobacco field, and asked her the second time the reason of her outcry the night before. He said, "You mind what you are doing—if you 'cheep,' (i.e., tell) about this thing, I will put a ball through you."

Wiley went home (the story goes on) and walked up and down his piazza, until late that night, attracting the attention of his family by his singular conduct. A negro man, on the watch, had followed him, and had hidden under the house, to hear what was said. The dwellings of the South are frequently without cellars and, in the country, are often sustained by brick and log supports; so it would be easy to crawl underneath. This negro claims to have heard some of Wiley's family ask him why he did not come to bed, and he replied that he was waiting for the wagon.

It was rumored among the negroes, that the purpose was to carry Stephens's corpse to a church near Wiley's, called "Republican Headquarters," and there leave it, to produce the impression that Stephens's political associates had killed him. There was a sprinkle of rain, after nightfall, and fresh wagon tracks were seen, which approached near to Yanceyville, and returned almost to Wiley's. Perhaps, if this was true, the scheme to steal away the body from the court house was baffled by the vigilance of the guards.

The effort was several times made to make it appear that Stephens had been slaughtered by his political friends, to get rid of him, or for effect. For instance, six years had elapsed when the Milton Chronicle, published in Caswell county, charged by innuendo, under the head of "Revelations," that "Hester, Holden, Settle, Smith, Albion (meaning Judge Tourgee), Albright, Boyd, Ball and Keogh" had accomplished this murder most foul. But Mr. Boyd, at the time of the Stephens homicide, was himself a member, in full standing, of the White Brotherhood. This silly charge was made during the Tilden-Hayes campaign of 1876; Judge Settle then being the Republican candidate for governor and William A. Smith for lieutenant-governor. The others named were all Republicans of more or less prominence. Of course the editor of the Chronicle, and his patrons, knew that the story was a lie.

While I was at Yanceyville, at the inquest, William Henry Stephens—(usually called Henry) as I could not at once go home, thought it would be better for me to stay all night at his late brother's residence. My sojourn at the dwelling, that night, gave me my first opportunity to see how it was fortified. The lower story was protected by thick planks, bullet-proof. The stairway was fixed with a trap door, which could be let down, by its hinges, from above; and then no one could go upstairs without forcing his way against great odds. There was a plentiful supply of firearms with abundant ammunition. Twenty men could resist successfully a hundred, or more, if the attacking party had no artillery. But if a lodgment could be effected below, what could prevent the firing of the dwelling and the destruction of its inmates?

Here Stephens had lived and kept his enemies at bay; and he was as brave as any of them and much more desperate. The cowards who attacked negro cabins in the dead of night, with overwhelming numbers, never invaded Stephens's premises, for that sort took no risks. Yet he felt secure, for he had said that he suffered none to approach him, but those he knew to be his friends. I suppose he thought Wiley was his "friend."

Let us go back a few weeks. At spring term (April, 1870) of the Caswell Superior Court, an alarm was given that the Kuklux were coming to kill Stephens, Judge Tourgee, and all Republicans and break up the court. This disquieting intelligence was conveyed to me by Judge Tourgee himself. At the time, I occupied a room in Mitchell's house, already mentioned. My apartment, although joined to the dwelling, had no door opening into the main building, so that one had to go into the yard to get to the entrances of that part of the structure. Hon. James T. Morehead, an aged lawyer, who had been famous in his day, and now attended the court from habit, occupied a room of the same size as mine, and opening into it, and detached, as mine was, from the main building.

On Monday afternoon, the first day of the term, Judge Tourgee told me that one Hemphill had informed him of the contemplated raid, and that it was to occur the next Wednesday night. He desired me to go with him to Stephens's house (where the judge boarded during the court), as one of the garrison, to help defend it. The proposition looked absurd to me and it seemed that, if I went, it might subject me to ridicule. No one likes to be ridiculed; at least, I do not.

It may be remarked, in passing, that Judge Tourgee had offended the lawyers, because he boarded with Stephens. They considered it beneath the dignity of so high an official to make his home with a man so low in the social scale, and they were all the more hostile toward the judge because he would do this. They insisted that they would have treated him with respect, if not with cordiality, had he not shown these degraded tastes. As it was, they had no more courtesy for him than for Stephens, believing the judge to have disgraced his office.

It was the effort of the lawyers of North Carolina, in those days, to avoid close contact with the populace and to preserve an esprit de corps. They believed that their only associates, on terms of equality, should be of their own order, as the clergy or medical profession, representing an educated aristocracy. The masses were illiterate, unpolished and, in the estimation of the lawyers, unfit for companionship with the cultivated classes, whose policy it was to inspire the plain people with profound respect for their superiors.

The statements here made of early ideas and feelings, largely result from conversations with Col. Thomas Ruffin, a man of aristocratic lineage and unusual powers of mind. He was a son of the late Chief Justice Ruffin, of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and afterward himself was an associate justice of that eminent tribunal. He informed me of the sentiment among the lawyers against Tourgee, because of his intimacy with Stephens. And once, when as a matter of course, with my New York education, I had offered to make oath to an affidavit, in a Caswell county lawsuit, wherein I was associated with Col. Ruffin, he advised me against it, and said it had been the custom, in North Carolina, for lawyers never to be sworn, in the conduct of their cases, it being considered that their mere word was sufficient; and so, as I afterward understood, the judges generally so regarded it.

Any one can see, however, the mischiefs which might occur from such a custom; as, after the verbal statements of lawyers, disputes might arise as to what had been said, and no one would be able to decide, and no one would try to do so, for fear of a quarrel. Happily the people, in spite of the traditions of slavery, are rapidly emerging from their blind gropings, as an outcome of the freedom thrust upon them by the civil war, and the younger members of the legal profession now aid in the work of educating the illiterate, knowing that it is better for the commonwealth that all should be taught.

The social conditions existing in North Carolina in the early days mentioned, may help to explain the intense bitterness manifested on all occasions toward men like Stephens. He was of humble parentage, but had been put forward by Governor Holden as a trusted agent of the State government. Thus was invaded the prerogatives of the privileged classes. The prejudices of the leaders were communicated to their followers (who did the voting to keep their rulers in power).

Judge Tourgee, and all carpet-baggers (myself included, of course), were esteemed to be opposed to the dominion of the aristocrats; some of whom, nevertheless, were themselves quite ordinary persons, but puffed up with pride, God knows what for!

Judge Tourgee also invited J. R. Bulla, Esquire, the solicitor, to help defend Stephens's house. Mr. Bulla was a native Republican. Neither he, nor I, believed at the time, that the Kuklux were banded together for serious mischief; although, as I afterward learned, a plot was laid, in those days, by the Randolph county Kuklux, to take Mr. Bulla out and whip him. Had this been done it would have been a wanton outrage. Mr. Bulla never knew of the plan. The scheme was prevented by the interference of a mere youth, Tom Worth, from whom I had the facts.

Both Mr. Bulla and myself decided to remain in our rooms. Out of deference, however, to Judge Tourgee's intelligence, I agreed, in case of an alarm, to go over and help fight it out. There were sixteen resolute fellows there, under the leadership of Judge Tourgee, all well armed and with enough ammunition. Had an attack been made it would have been a lively conflict. Mr. Bulla, born a Quaker, would not agree to join in the battle, preferring, I suppose, in accordance with his tenets, to be murdered in cold blood.

The raid did not take place, however. The judge had caused all the roads leading to Yanceyville to be patrolled, and it was understood that if any considerable body of men approached from any direction light-wood fires would be kindled as warnings.

Tuesday night of the same week, I was invited, and so was Mr. Bulla, to a supper at Judge Kerr's. Nearly all of the members of the bar in attendance upon the court, were guests. Among them I remember Col. Ruffin, General Alfred M. Scales, Col. Junius I. Scales and Col. Dillard. Judge Tourgee was not invited.

Before I went to the supper Judge Kerr, whose residence was not far off, came to my room and smoked his pipe, with its long reed stem. Sometimes he walked the floor, and then sat down, then walked again, and so on. His manner was uneasy, a characteristic of the man. Several times he seemed ready to speak and then restrained himself. He had professed a liking for me, and as he was an impulsive man, I thought he might wish to say something about the threatenings in the air; but finally he kept whatever was on his mind to himself. He had fine traits, but was pompous in demeanor. Those who liked that style were fond of him.

At the April term of the court, the evidences of the presence of the Kuklux in Caswell county, accumulated. After partaking of supper with Judge Kerr and his guests, I retired to rest in my room, quite uneasy because of the rumors. I had fallen into a doze, when my ears were disturbed by voices and singing and a guitar tinkled. My venerable neighbor, Hon. James T. Morehead, was being serenaded. After the music (so-called) had ceased "Uncle Jimmy" made a little speech to the boys. From this, and the conversation ensuing, I learned that it was confessedly a Kuklux serenade. The venerable Nestor of the bar said to his visitors that there were many worse things than the Kuklux—among them the Union League and the Republican party. And so the young men were encouraged.

I was glad when the time came to go home; which I did on the 14th day of April, 1870. I started from Yanceyville in a buggy, with a Mr. Fowler, a resident of Greensboro. Had I previously doubted the existence of the Klans, I must have been convinced, after that ride, unimportant in itself, but memorable for the events which lately had taken place. The remarks and manners of my companion were peculiar. He had a furtive, scared expression as night enclosed us. He was a native Democrat—and I was amazed at his evident trepidation.

We were striving to reach Ruffin, a little station on the Richmond and Danville railroad (now called the Southern Railroad) a few miles south of Danville. Although spring was opening, there was no foliage on the trees, except tiny leaflets bursting into life. Night advanced and the moon shone effulgent, but her rays were obscured by the divergent limbs of the forest, when we sometimes plunged into its depths. The gloom was intensified by drifting clouds, hanging low; but these momentarily lifted, briefly restoring the cheery moonbeams and silver roadway. Many tree-trunks were white, contrasting with the darkness within the dense woods, glistening like spectres, as the tremulous light glimmered through the branches. There was no sound in the forest, except the solemn wail of the wind, and the steady tramp, tramp—tramp, tramp of the hurrying horse. My flesh crept and shuddered under the drastic influence of the chill night and the doleful croakings of my companion; who talked continually of the Kuklux, and peered through the bushes and undergrowth, as if expecting to see rise from the ground a full cavalcade of shadowy night-riders.

We reached Ruffin, nevertheless, in good time, and went whirling home in a comfortable railway coach, filled not with hobgoblins, but with civilized human beings.

Afterward I learned that the companion of my night-ride (who was a tailor) had sewn together the diabolical garbs of the White Brotherhood of his vicinity. Remembering this hideous livery of the devil, it was no wonder he was afraid, even of the peaceful moon, as she benignantly observed him through the arms of the forest.

---

New York, Feb. 2.—The result of the election (Nov. 8) was rather shocking, but not unexpected. I think the Republicans deserved the drubbing. A hundred and ninety thousand of them, in New York, did not vote; so to punish somebody for something, they let Tammany obtain control.

Governor Dix doesn't say anything; but Governor Wilson says enough for both. It remains to be seen whether or not the latter has not bitten off more than he can masticate.

In the course of my life I have been shocked more than once, mostly, while living in North Carolina. For instance, in 1876, when it was supposed that Tilden had been elected, the young men of Odell's store thought it a good joke and decorated my fence with black calico. Our colored cook, thinking it would hurt our feelings, stripped it all off early in the morning before we got a sight of it, much to our regret. But Madam was equal to the emergency and had the girl gather up the black stuff and take it to Odell's store to sell for paper-rags! The cook was received with shouts of applause, showing that Odell's young men fully appreciated the humor of the occasion.

Odell had a big store, but all the black calico in stock must have been cleaned out on that occasion. As I understand at the time, the fences of Judge Dick, Postmaster White, Col. Keogh, Judge Settle and Judge Tourgee were all decorated. The last named, characteristically, sought to make capital out of the episode, which was only a joke.

When I went to bed very late the night before (or rather in the morning) I thought Tilden had really been elected and I did not enjoy the sensation. Nevertheless I did not feel as I did six years before, in the Ku Klux times. We lived then in the little cottage opposite the jail. The election was in August. Madam had gone North to visit her home-folks. I was alone in the house. Diagonally across the street was a disreputable bar-room, where all the "roughs" assembled every night; and for no less than three weeks after the "Conservative" victory these fellows kept up a shouting and howling, which was far from agreeable to me.

Those were the Kuklux days and the times were very uncomfortable, especially for a carpet-bagger, whose party had been overwhelmingly defeated. But I did not know anything about the Kuklux and was simple-minded enough not to fully credit their existence.

I had become a citizen of North Carolina in November, 1868; but being unaccustomed to the ways and prejudices of the people, I was not prepared to believe what was said about the Klans. Respectable Southern gentlemen denied their existence and I felt bound by their protestations. Yet a "den" met frequently in Greensboro; sometimes in Bogart's Hall; sometimes in the old Caldwell Institute (now torn down), again upstairs over the Lindsay corner (recently destroyed) opposite the court house and more often in the woods in the northern suburbs of the town, not a great ways from the residence of Judge Dick.

These meetings were occurring after the beginning of my residence in Greensboro, for nearly a year, but I did not know of them. Indeed, young men with whom I was well acquainted, actually were members of the fraternity—men whom I met every day, on social terms, in my boarding house at Mrs. Gilmer's. I had not reason to suspect their membership. Of course the assemblages were as secret as could be. When they were held in Bogart's Hall, for example—so I have since been told by participants—the only light was a candle, placed under a table, so that its rays could not shine through the curtained windows.

While I myself was incredulous, my political friends, Union men, natives of the South, familiar with the methods and peculiarities of the people, were firm believers in the entity of the Kuklux. They saw and understood the most trivial signs and signals. These men had been on the spot when the rebellion raged and had, in many instances, belonged to the "Red Strings," and other secret societies, banded together for mutual help and protection, and to aid the Union cause, in which they implicitly believed; and to assist escaping prisoners of war through the military lines. If therefore they observed a peculiar mark upon a tree, or figures upon the ground, they knew there was some meaning intended.

But the time soon came when I had to believe. In the latter days of 1869, Judge Tourgee, then of the Superior Court, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of several citizens of Caswell county. They were charged with having visited in disguise the cabins of a number of negroes, whom they took out and whipped. I was employed by Gov. Holden to conduct the examination of witnesses for the State; but the defendants easily proved alibis, as usual in such cases.

A few months afterward I was notified by the Governor to attend similar examinations before Mr. John W. Stephens (called "Chicken Stephens" by Jo. Turner). Mr. Stephens was a justice of the peace in Yanceyville. He was likewise a State Senator, but the legislature was not then in session.

I proceeded to Yanceyville via Danville, Va., leaving the railroad at the latter town, and driving sixteen miles across the country. Reaching Yanceyville in the forenoon, I noticed several groups of men, apparently laboring under suppressed excitement. Beginning to understand the popular temper I feared a riot if the cases should go on before the magistrate that day.

I stated my apprehensions to the Honorable John Kerr, the leading attorney for the defendants and suggested that, to avoid a possible riot, his clients should waive examination, and give bail for their appearance at the next term of the Superior Court, which they could do easily.

All of the Yanceyville lawyers appeared with Judge Kerr for the defendants, doubtless volunteering their services with patriotic fervor. After further consultation, my suggestion was adopted and thus, it may be, bloodshed was then avoided. At any rate, events soon to follow in Yanceyville, justify the belief that Stephens would have been put out of the way on the spot, had the trials proceeded.

When the cases had been disposed of, Stephens came to my room. He was a slender, sinewy man, with fair complexion, pale blue eyes and light brown hair, not prepossessing in manners or appearance; illiterate and unpolished, but very earnest; belonging to the plain classes of the South. His origin was respectable, although born into a poor family, in Guilford county. He had courage and tenacity. He was the leader of the Caswell county Republicans, being one of the few white men who dared to profess Republican principles in that locality. He was bitterly hated by the "Conservatives," and this boded him no good. Yet knowing it all, accused of petty crimes, which he had not committed, held up to ridicule by such a man as Jo. Turner, then a veritable potentate, Stephens had stood up boldly in the midst of a hostile population, with no backers but the timid negroes, which only intensified the hatred of his enemies. No romance of chivalry has ever invested its heroes with a nobler spirit than his, which was more than equal to that of the bravest of his traducers—for who of them all would have faced the dangers that he was facing?

He resided about a quarter of a mile from the Yanceyville court house, within plain view of it. His house was veritably his castle, where he had fortified himself. He was besieged at home and was under obsession everywhere; yet he seemed to hold danger in contempt.

On this occasion he wore a sack-coat of medium length, with side-pockets. He said he had been warned by anonymous letters to leave the State. "But," he said simply, "I have a right to be here and can't be scared away from my home and family." Continuing, Stephens told me how well he was prepared for emergencies; and he displayed two single-barreled, breech-loading Derringers. He showed me how rapidly he could load them and seemed expert in handling the weapons. He carried a pistol in each side-pocket of his coat, within easy reach. He said he never permitted any one to approach unless he knew him to be a friend; that he always carried the Derringers, but that on "public days," he also had with him what I understood to be a seven shooter.

In his estimation this was a public day, because a crowd was in town, attracted by the cases before his magistrate's court. Yanceyville was but a small village, with a court house and a few dwellings, stores and shops, and ordinarily not many persons were on the streets. There was no hotel. Throwing back his coat, Stephens, displayed to me his other weapon. With his temper and dangerous surroundings, he was a man to be dreaded by his foes, for he meant to kill any assailant. He could be overcome only by treachery, as will be seen hereafter.

To me, his words had peculiar significance, when considered in connection with the occurrences of the next few days; for it should be noticed that he declared he never suffered any one to approach, unless he knew him to be a friend. "But," he added, "I think the worst is now over and they," (meaning the Kuklux) "are becoming frightened at their own acts." Alas, how little he knew or understood the venom of his enemies! Our conversation was on Monday. The next Saturday, May 21, 1870, Stephens was murdered in a lower room of the Yanceyville court house.

A vivid account of the assassination is given in "A Fool's Errand," where John Walter Stephens is called "John Walters." Whether it is all true as therein narrated, I cannot say for certain; but the story, confessedly fiction, is no more monstrous than the reality. It was a ghastly murder. As those who know best about it (if still alive) have told nothing, and will not, any narrative of the circumstances must be imperfect.

On the day of the homicide Stephens had attended a Democratic meeting, upstairs in the court house, in the audience-room. According to his custom he had been taking note of the speeches.

Sometimes he used the room where his body afterward was found, for the trial of his magistrate's cases. This room was at the time occupied for no other purpose, and was devoid of furniture, except an old table and a chair or two. A pile of fire-place wood extended across it, on the north side, next to the wall, one end of the pile being near a window. There were three windows, two of them overlooking the court house yard, opposite a street. On the other side of the street were several negro houses. Stephens's dwelling could be seen plainly from the windows, being southeast from the court house. The only door entering the room was from the hallway, which passed entirely through the building from north to south. The door of the room was within a few feet of the rear hall entrance.

Stephens, after being in the meeting upstairs, until about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, was called out by a man named Wiley; with whom Stephens had been in frequent conversation during the day, trying to induce Wiley to become an independent candidate for sheriff. Wiley was a Democrat and Stephens had pledged him the Republican vote of Caswell county. After the two went out together Stephens was not seen alive by any one innocent of the murder.

No doubt Wiley enticed Stephens from the meeting and admitted it. But according to a letter from Hon. R. Z. Linney (recently deceased) published in the News-Observer, Dec. 29, 1891, credited to the Statesville Landmark, "a gentleman of intelligence who was at Yanceyville at the time of the tragedy," declared that he had information regarded by him as altogether reliable, that Wiley was not in the room when Stephens was killed, but had arranged to get him from the court-room, to extort from him a promise to leave the county; and the promise not being given Stephens was killed. According to the "gentleman of intelligence," Wiley was "very angry" with the men who had slain Stephens—a lame excuse, it must be admitted; although his "anger" was quite creditable.

Mr. Linney, it may be stated, in passing, said in his letter, that Wiley died at his (Linney's) house near Taylorsville, and that the "measure of the corpse was about seven feet in length." This statement seems astounding, but as I recollect him, Wiley was a very tall man. Upon one occasion, during the Kuklux troubles, I saw him on horseback, going from Yanceyville, with a long rifle resting in the hollow of his arm—an incident characteristic of the times. He looked like a wind mill on horse back.

MATERIALS FROM THE SCRAPBOOK OF W. A. HAYNE COLLECTED IN 1874[1]

William A. Hayne was a native of Charleston, and a free man of free parents. His mother's father and his father's father were white. He was educated in the Charleston school of free Negroes. He attained the position of Representative in the Legislature and served the State efficiently. Hayne passed away in 1889.

The recent meeting at Barnwell Courthouse was by far the largest held there since the war. The meeting was called to order by Dr. J. W. Ogilvie as temporary chairman. A committee of five, consisting of Col. Counts, Captain F. M. Wanamaker, Dr. J. C. Miller, and Messrs. W. T. Blanton and J. M. Hudson were appointed to select permanent officers, and nominated the following gentlemen: General Johnson Hagood, President; Messrs. Counts, Sojourner, Blanton, Killingsworth and Ogilvie, vice-presidents; J. M. Ryan, secretary.

General Hagood, who was at the front end of the hall, some distance from the chair he was to occupy, upon the invitation of the temporary chairman, advanced to take his seat as presiding officer amidst deafening applause. On taking the chair, General Hagood said: "I understand the purpose of this meeting to be to consider the misgovernment in South Carolina, which running through ten long years, has culminated in the shameful and shameless proceedings of our present Legislature. It is not for me, here, to recall this disgraceful history in all its details. You have borne with it till patience has ceased to be a virtue, and from one end of this American Union to another, regardless of section or party the press—that mighty engine and exponent of popular sentiment—is now ringing with the denunciation of the last wrong inflicted upon you, and with commendation of the true and faithful man who, with a heroism surpassing that of the battlefield, which is wielding such weapons as the executive army can furnish in your temporary defence. This thing has gone far enough: This crowded hall—these earnest faces over which a light flickers that carries me back to a time since when my head and heart have alike grown gray, tell me so. Every instinct of self-preservation tells me that the time has come when all in South Carolina who are fit to live outside of her penitentiary, or expect to within her borders an inheritance for their children, must enlist in this struggle. It will be a contest in which no half-hearted recruit is wanted. It is a fight for life and property, in which you will have to do all that a citizen may do—and, if need be, all that may become a man." (Applause.)

Mr. Alfred Aldrich rose and said: A short time ago, in this house, I said among other things to the taxpayers, that I had "implicit confidence in the people of Barnwell County, but none in Governor Chamberlain." In the light of recent events, I desire to make the Amende honorable to Governor Chamberlain, and here, with equal unreserve as when I made the declaration alluded to, I wish to submit the charge in my opinion embodied in the following resolutions:

Resolved that Governor Chamberlain, from his first ... to his last veto, has carried ... knowledge to the platform on which ... if he does not receive the support of the leading men of his own party, is entitled to the confidence and will receive the cordial sympathy and merited aid of the honest and good men in South Carolina.

Resolved, that in rising above party to vindicate the civilization and ancient good name of the States over which he presides, by his rebuke to the Legislature for the election of corrupt and incompetent judges, as he has shown large statesmanship, integrity of purpose and courage of performance that command the respect and approval of all good men, irrespective of party.

Resolved: that the Governor, having taken care of the Charleston and Sumter circuits by refusing to commission Whipper and Moses and not being able to reach Wiggins in the same way, we of the Barnwell circuit must see that he does not defile the bench and debauch the county now adorned by the virtue and the learning of the incorruptible Maher.

Resolved: That we recognize and appreciate the difficulties that the Governor has had to contend against to maintain his position as a political reformer, that we acknowledge probity in redeeming the pledges contained in the platform on which he was elected to office, and admire his boldness in resisting the pressure of those who were not in earnest when they made them; that we are fully sensible of the opposition that he encountered and the difficulties that have environed him in acting his arduous role, and that we take this occasion to show him and the men of his party who endorse him, of our cordial support.

The resolutions were unanimously and enthusiastically adopted. The Honorable A. P. Aldrich by invitation, then addressed the meeting. We have already published his remarks.

It was resolved that the President appoint, at his leisure, an executive committee of five to carry out in Barnwell County such recommendations as might be made by the Central Democratic Executive Committee, at its meeting in Columbia on the instant.

Mr. Simms then offered the following resolutions, which were carried out unanimously: Resolved, that in view of our repeated failures to reform the State Government by the policy of co-operation with the Conservative element of the Republican Party, who professed the same object, and of recent events we recognize the absolute and immediate necessity of reorganizing the Democratic party to restore an honest and economical government.

Resolved: That the Democratic Party of South Carolina will in the future, as it has in the past, support principles, not men, and we hereby extend a cordial invitation to all men in the State, who desire honest government, to unite with us, at least until we have accomplished our purpose.

Resolved: That the co-operation now invited is not with the bad men who have heretofore deluded, deceived and betrayed our colored fellow-citizens, but with the great mass of that class who, we believe, are willing to rescue the State from the grasp of these unprincipled adventurers.

Resolved: That the President appoint a committee of five to carry out the recommendations of the State executive committee to meet in Columbia on the 6th instant.

The following resolutions offered by Col. Counts, were adopted without a dissenting voice.

Whereas, by an indiscreet action of the Legislature of this State an insult of the grossest nature—an insult to all common decency and to all civilization, has been thrust into our faces by way of an election for judges of the respective circuits of Judges Maher, Reed and Shaw; and whereas, it was not expected or desired by either political party of said circuits that either of the present incumbents should be defeated; and whereas, we regard this act as a public declaration against the peace, prosperity and happiness of all virtue and intelligence, now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That we, the people of this section of the second circuit, not wishing to make an issue with any individual or party, and not being willing to risk our lives and property in the hands of the newly elected judge, P. L. Wiggins, for reasons obvious, do earnestly request the said P. L. Wiggins to tender his resignation to the Governor at once, and that the Governor do declare said vacancy be filled by an election to take place before the close of the present session of the Legislature.

Resolved, That a memorial be prepared by such persons as the president of this meeting shall designate, asking for the re-election of Judge Maher, and that said memorial (by request of this convention) be presented to the Legislature by the Hon. Chancellor Johnson.

Resolved, That a memorial be prepared by such persons as the president of this meeting shall designate, asking for the re-election of Judge Maher, and that said memorial (by request of this convention) be presented to the Legislature by the Hon. Chancellor Johnson.

Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed by the president of this meeting to communicate with the action of this meeting to communicate with Solicitor Wiggins, and to notify him of the action of this convention; and that said committee be instructed to assure him that this convention is not prompted by any impure motives or personal animosity for him in taking this action, but alone for the interest of the country, and for the peace,....

Vote of Marion County in 1870

	Reform	Republican
Marion	372	511
Friendship	79	65
Mars Bluff	84	192
Berry's X Roads	196	178
Mullins	196	124
Aliens	72	33
High Hill	176	37
Old Ark	23	17
Cains	121	120
McMilans	105	36
Little Rock	277	204
Aeriel	130	57
Stones	62	73
Jeffries Creek	67	224
Old Neck	80	67
Campbells Bridge	151	56
Totals	2191	1994

"It will be seen from the above statement that the reform movement in 1870 carried the county by a majority of 207 votes. In that election the fight was between the Conservatives and the Republicans—the whites against the blacks. In fact it was a question of color, for both races voted solidly. Now it is different. The Republicans have inaugurated the Reform movement, and the fight on the 3d of November will be between the two wings of this party. The problem then is easy to solve. The Reform movement will carry Marion County by an overwhelming majority."

	Reform	Republican
Marion	372	511
Friendship	79	65
Mars Bluff	84	192
Berry's X Roads	196	178
Mullins	196	124
Aliens	72	33
High Hill	176	37
Old Ark	23	17
Cains	121	120
McMilans	105	36
Little Rock	277	204
Aeriel	130	57
Stones	62	73
Jeffries Creek	67	224
Old Neck	80	67
Campbells Bridge	151	56
Totals	2191	1994

THE SPEAKING TOMORROW 1870

The representatives of both wings of the Republican party will speak at the Courthouse tomorrow. We hope every Republican in the county will be present and hear what both sides have to say. The Republican voters of the county who have any doubt as to their duty at the coming election, for whom they should vote, we hope, will be sufficiently enlightened to cast their votes for honest men and an honest Government.

We hope, for the character of Marion, that, those who come to the Courthouse on this occasion, will come for the purpose of enlightening themselves on a subject which involves the salvation of the State, and that each and every one will constitute himself a keeper of the peace, and that good order will be preserved during the day.

ROLL OF MEMBERS OF THE UNION REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION, 1874

Aiken—R. B. Elliot, C. D. Hayne, Gloster Holland, W. M. Peel.

Abbeville—H. Wideman, J. R. Tolbert, R. Griffin, A. H. Wallace, A. J. Titus.

Anderson—John R. Cochran, C. A. Mathison, W. R. Parker.

Barnwell—W. J. Whipper, C. P. Leslie, E. M. Sumter,—Jackson.

Beaufort—Robert Smalls, N. B. Myers, R. H. Gleaves, T. E. Miller, Thomas Hamilton, S. J. Bamfield, Hastings Gantt.

Charleston—W. R. Jervey, E. W. M. Mackey, Aaron Logan, S. E. Gaillard, W. J. McKinlay, T. H. Jones, E. B. Seabrook, J. L. Walker, W. T. Oliver, W. G. Pinckney, Stephen Brown, Edward Petty, J. A. Williams, J. W. Reid, J. A. Mushington, P. P. Hedges, R. B. Gathers, A. C. Richmond.

Chester—T. J. Mackey, D. J. Walker, Barney Humphries.

Chesterfield—T. L. Weston, Robert Brewer.

Clarendon—J. D. Warley, Syfax Milton.

Colleton—W. M. Thomas, A. C. Schaffer, A. P. Holmes, T. H. Grant, W. F. Myers.

Darlington—T. C. Cox, B. F. Whittemore, Jordan Lang, J. B. Middleton.

Edgefield—J. H. McDevitt, Lawrence Cain, Paris Simkins, David Graham, Ned Tenant.

Fairfield—Daniel Bird, Thomas Walker, William Boler.

Georgetown—J. H. Rainey, W. H. Jones, Jr., R. M. Herriott.

Greenville—J. M. Runion, Thos. Brier, A. Blythe, Zion Collins.

Horry—T. C. Dunn, H. W. Jones.

Kershaw—J. A. Chestnut, N. W. Blair, Frank Carter.

Lancaster—Jos. Clarke, Allen Hudson.

Laurens—Y. J. P. Owens, H. McDaniels, James Young, Jos. Crews.

Lexington—R. H. Kirk, S. L. Lorick.

Marion—C. Smith, W. A. Hayne, M. K. Holloway, Anthony Howard.

Marlboro—H. J. Maxwell, D. D. McColl.

Newberry—H. C. Corwin, C. David, Henry Gillem.

Oconee—M. D. Singleton, Elisha Jenkins.

Orangeburg—T. C. Andrews, R. R. Duncan, C. W. Caldwell, E. I. Cain, Samuel Lewis.

Pickens—O. C. Folger.

Richland—C. M. Wilder, J. J. Patterson, F. L. Cardoza, C. S. Minort.

Sumter—Samuel Lee, F. J. Moses, Jr., W. E. Johnson, J. M. Tindall.

Spartanburg—J. Winsmith, T. B. Hartwell, S. T. Poinier, Alex Jones.

Union—June Mobley, S. Hawkins, J. H. Goss.

Williamsburg—S. A. Swails, J. T. Peterson, Wm. Scott.

York—J. H. White, R. M. Crook, M. L. Owens, Nelson Davis.

Marion County

For Governor,
John T. Green
For Lieutenant-Governor,
Martin R. Delaney
For Congress,
Samuel Lee
State Board of Equalization,
B. D. Townsend, of Darlington
W. B. Smith, of Charleston
W. D. Mars, of Abbeville
G. W. Melton, of Chester
S. J. Lee, of Aiken
Representatives,
W. D. Johnson W. A. Hayne
B. G. Howard A. H. Howard
Judge of Probate,
John Wilcox, Sr.
School Commissioners,
J. A. Smith
County Commissioners,
T. W. Ayres A. J. Fryer
J. P. Davis

A GREEN POW WOW

Confusion Triumphant

To the Editor of the Charleston Chronicle:

A mass meeting of those of the Republicans of this County who are credulous enough to espouse the bolters movement, was held here on Tuesday the 29th inst, at the Court House under the call of one Dr. J. B. Thompson, temporary County Chairman, who was sent down here by Senator T. C. Dunn, with a handsome and carefully prepared set of Resolutions, for adoption, pledging the entire County for Green and Reform, and lauding Senator Jones, for his steadfast adherence to the cause; and with equal warmth denouncing the other of our delegation for daring to exercise their untrammelled opinion in their support and advocacy of Daniel H. Chamberlain. The resolutions, however, were never introduced as intended owing to the fact that the Chairman, the said Dr. Thompson, had not the temerity to call his own meeting to order, nor did he put in an appearance at any time during the proceedings. The recollections of the bombardment of Castle Jones, on the memorable night of the 13th of August was too vivid upon his memory. But about the meeting.

It was a Babel of confusion from beginning to ending. This arose principally from an evident disposition on the part of the most prominent Greenites, to thrust the notorious Bowley upon the people as a Delegate, against their will and wishes. The meeting was really a Pow Wow. A motion of any description could not be heard and the meeting adjourned without coming to any effectual conclusion.

The majority of the people are under such a feeling having been foiled, deceived, and deserted by the men whom they have elevated for honor, that they now have inscribed upon their banners:

"Judge Green may try with might and main, But he'll never beat Daniel H. Chamberlain."

Republican.

MATTERS IN MARION

Freaks of a Jack-in-Office—The Proceedings of the District Conference

Correspondence of the News and Courier

Marion, S. C., July 20, 1874.

One W. A. Hayne, of nondescript complexion and Radical persuasion, whose frantic speeches and other wild performances during a political canvass several years ago procured him the sobriquet of "Notoriety," is just now lording over our unhappy people in the guise of a United States commissioner. In this potential capacity he has commenced active operations against those who he or his ebon emissaries choose to suspect of transgressing the internal revenue law. Farmers who may have been in the habit of purchasing small quantities of tobacco just as they purchase other supplies for the use of the laborers on their plantations, have all at once become victims of vindictive prosecutions—the officers who make the arrests, and the over-zealous witnesses for the government, all being negroes. It is said that a farmer must not buy tobacco for his hands without having obtained a regular license therefor. While this may or may not be true, it seems to be certain that the warlike commissioner is enforcing the decision not so much in the spirit of the law, which he pretends to vindicate, as with a malicious propensity to annoy his political opponents. He was not gracious enough to consider that our farmers were without perhaps a single exception, ignorant of the existence of so stringent a ruling, (if, indeed, it does exist,) and he did not see the propriety of advertising it for the benefit of those whose character would belie the suspicion of an intention to defraud the revenue. It may be that "Noteriety Hayne," by thus flaunting in our faces his puissant commission, means to enhance his consequence as a prospective candidate far the Legislature, or that he thereby seeks to ingratiate himself with the colored people who relish (as he may suppose) the persecution and humiliation to which the planters are subjected by such wanton abuses of misplaced authority.

The transaction from this topic to matters of religion may be somewhat violent; it is, nevertheless, a relief. The Marion District Conference of the Methodist Church convened here on Thursday last, and remained in session four days. An unusually large number of delegates were in attendance. The deliberations, which were presided over by Rev. W. C. Power, were conducted in a spirit of earnest devotion to the important interests which came up for consideration. The reports from the various charges in the district, which embraces the Counties of Marlboro', Marion, Horry and Georgetown, and portions of Darlington and Williamsburg, exhibited a most gratifying state of the church. The Sunday-Schools were shown to be in a very flourishing condition, and the cause of temperance was making headway against all opposition. The Rev. Drs. Shipp and Jones, presidents respectively of Wofford and Columbia Female Colleges, were present, and their fine pulpit ministrations added much to the interest of the occasion.

DIVIDING THE NEGRO VOTE

Why the South Has Failed to Accomplish It

A Northern Journalist's Impressions of the Palmetto State

The following extracts from a letter of Mr. John Russell Young, published in the New York Herald, are well worthy of attentive consideration; but we need hardly say that in our opinion Mr. Young is wholly mistaken in holding the white responsible, during the last five years at least, for the solidity and infrangibility of the negro in the South:

The Letter

Why is it that the Southerners, the whites who masters before the war, have not devided the negro vote, and uniting with those who were intelligent, gained control of the State so as to secure it an efficient government? It would seem to the ordinary political thinker that even three-sevenths whites could control the four-sevenths blacks. One thinks of the Saxon in India with the Hindoo, in Canada with the French, in Jamaica with the Negro, in Ireland, after a turbulent fashion, with the mailed hand, and yet his rule is now absolute. Why is it that in South Carolina it is otherwise? My gifted and honored colleague, Mr. Nordhoff, in his series of letters from the South, says it is because he has been corrupted by the carpet-bagger. With all deference to that distinguished authority, his answer is an imperfect solution. Surely the Negro who knows his old master, who has lived with him during his life, who in most cases looks with affection upon him and all who belong to him—surely in the new relation he will look to the master as a friend, and take his guidance in so solemn a duty as entering upon citizenship. This too because as we learn from all authorities, and from none more clearly than Mr. Nordhoff, that the master, "accepts the new relation" and has no purpose of renewing the war, and, so far as from wishing to return the negro to slavery, feels that the old system was an error, even from an economical point of view, and that in time its abolition will prove to be a blessing to the white, whatever it may be to the black. Why, then this being the case, has the carpet-bagger been able to strangle a commonwealth like South Carolina, and with the aid of the Negro, plunder his old master? The only answer that I can see is that the whites have not taken any pains to cultivate the blacks, who would naturally go with them, or the intelligent and honest Northern men who came here, meaning in good faith to make the South a home and to grow up with the Southern people. In nearly every case with scarcely an exception, the whites have drawn a line, just as Jefferson Davis drew when he embarked upon the Confederacy. They alone have a right here. Whoever opposes him is a "scalawag," a "carpet-bagger," or a "nigger." A "scalawag" if as a Southern born man he votes with the Republicans; a "carpet-bagger" if he comes from the North, no matter how he votes. This line is drawn with severity and with scarcely an exception. A worthy citizen of Charleston, who came from the North in the beginning of the war, from motives of philanthropy, to educate the blacks, who has lived in the state ever since, and holds a high reputation from all classes because of his integrity and ability, told me that he had never been asked to the home of a Southern man since he came into the State. "They do business with me, meet me in public places and show me all respect, but never open the latch key". A reverend and highly esteemed prelate of the Methodist Church in the North came here to attend a gathering of African churches. He was in an official position, for these churches were under the control of his denomination. He remained here several days presiding over the gathering. He was known to be an honored prelate, whose life was given solely to his religious duties. He told me that during his stay in South Carolina he had not received a single attention from his Southern fellow Methodists. The clergy had not noticed his presence nor asked him into their pulpit. He saw only fellow Christians who had come from the North or Negroes, I cannot imagine how the line can be more closely drawn, and now speak of what happened only a few days since.

The Negro and His Northern Ally

The negro, then has been thrown back upon his Northern ally. Every memory, every name, every anniversary of the war, is cherished as sacred. All the rest is an abomination. You may well ask: "Why should not this be so, for are not these memories dear to them by the blood slain brothers and children?" Truly so, and far be it from me to profane so holy a thought as that which would honor them. But I am answering the question propounded some time since as to how it is that the Southern whites have never succeeded in dividing the colored vote, so as to give the states a good government. They have driven the Negro away. In Georgia when they gained power they have practically disfranchised him. But for the interference of the Federal Congress they would have forbidden his appearance in their legislatures. I do not think that any frank Georgian will deny that this result was largely due to intimidation and force. In a State with 545,142 negroes in 1870, to 638,926 whites, they have virtually stamped out a Republican party. The negro is afraid to vote, is not in many places allowed on the jury, is punished severely for crimes, and Mr. Nordhoff has told you that at least 25,000 of them have left the State in the last five years; and yet in Georgia they pay taxes on a large property. The negro in South Carolina sees what has been done across the line, and he knows, or naturally fears, that should the white man rule here the same results will follow. As a consequence, therefore, the negro is in the hands of the adventurer. He fears that his master will make him a slave, or reduce him to a condition akin to slavery. The result is, therefore, that not one of them will vote the Democratic ticket. I have heard of Democratic negroes, but I have seen none. I have spoken on this subject with Southern men in Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and there is only one story. "I have negroes here," said one eminent gentleman, "who were my slaves in the old time. They hang around my house. They will fight for me, work for me and bring me their money to keep. They take my advice in all things, and are trustworthy and devoted. They will not vote for me. My coachman there will vote against me and in favor of the meanest Republican in the county." The negro thus far sees nothing in politics but his own freedom. He votes for Grant all the time. His political education embraces a sentiment and a fact. The sentiment is Lincoln, the fact is Grant. I was talking to a woolly headed vagabond the other day, who had learned that I was a Northern man, and wanted to go home with me as an attendant. He was a worthless, ragged, shining darky, as black as night, and earned his living, he told me, by dancing the juba for gentlemen on the sidewalk when the police were not looking. During the war he was a slave lad. "Did you know you were free," I said, "before the war was over?" He told me that the news came very quickly; that they all kept "mighty shady," never pretending to know until "Massa Sherman came with the soldiers." But they knew it all the time, and there was never a night that his "old mammie didn't pray to Massa Lincoln." This is the thought that has burned deep into the negro mind. You cannot erase it. You cannot take it from him. He has heard the slaves' horn. He has worn the yoke and carried the scar into furrow and swamp. He has seen father and mother perhaps, taken to the block and sold into slavery. That memory ever lives as it would live with you and I, if such a career darkened our lives. So Moses may steal and Whipper may "administer justice," to him they mean freedom. Coming out of the night they find no hand to grasp but the hand of the adventurer. Is it any wonder then, that they follow him as blind men or those who see darkly?

Better Signs

I cannot resist the conclusion, and it grows upon me every day, in the South, that for much of the wrong, that has been done in these States the old Southerners are to blame. I say this in sorrow and with no harshness of feeling to them, and not without making allowance for a feeling which, after all, is one of human nature, a feeling of hatred of the men who defeated their hopes of empire and of contempt for the negro, who is today a senator, but who yesterday could have been sent to the whipping post. It is not easy for a planter who has not enough to eat to rejoice over the fact that the servant who once washed his beard is now his ruler of the State. But, whatever the motive of the feeling, the negro in South Carolina is at the feet of Moses and Whipper, because he was driven there. The old master has as yet made no sign of sympathy or friendship. I am profoundly convinced that if, instead of mourning over the lost cause, as in the past they were wont to bluster about the Yankees and slavery, these people had dealt wisely with the negro and generously with the Northern immigrant, these States, and South Carolina especially, would be free and powerful. I hail the Chamberlain movement in one of its aspects as the opening of a new era. The support which that officer receives from the leading journal in the State, and one of the leading journals in the South—The News and Courier—shows the awakening of a new spirit. This paper thoroughly Democratic, its editors gentlemen who were in the Confederacy through the whole war and firm in their devotion to the lost cause, sees that the only hope for South Carolina is supporting the honest, intelligent New England Governor, who says he is Republican from conviction and never ... a Democrat; that he has no sympathy for Democracy or desire to be in its councils ... that as Governor he means to give ... honest government. The news ... takes the Governor at his word and ... him on, while newspapers over the border in Georgia mock and deride. If Chamberlain succeeds he will divide the colored vote, and for the first time array parties upon some other dividing line than that laid down by Jefferson Davis when he founded his Confederacy.

Hope for Carolina

But whether he succeeds or not the movement which he began a year ago, and which is now almost national in its extent, must go on. There is no way for South Carolina to win a good government except on this basis. Here the negroes are and in a large majority. They cannot be driven away, they cannot be slain, they cannot be disfranchised. They must be asked to take part in government, to unite with honest men in punishing crime. Education makes this more and more easy, and amid all this sorrow and strife and tumult the work of education goes on. The negro pants for the primer and the speller as the hart for the water of the brook. I have taken pains, in some bookstore loungings, to inquire about this. I learned in nearly every case that the negroes were constant purchasers, and almost invariably of school-books—elementary and advanced. I am told that the negro is as anxious to read and write as he used to be to own a yellow cravat. I do not suppose this education goes far, but it is something. It is there I see day—there, and nowhere else. This old feeling must die out. These memories of the Southern Confederacy must be put away with the family laces and grandmother' samplers. Leaders like Toombs and Hill must be superseded. These negroes must be taught that freedom means responsibility, and that honesty is safety and peace. These lands and ports, these watercourses, these widely stretching and vast acres, must respond to capital and energy, the money and the skill of the North. Here is room in South Carolina alone for all of New England, and in no State could the spirit of New England work such marvels. But so long as the fogs of slavery and misgovernment and ostracism and social hatred hang over them like the malaria of their own rice lowlands, so long South Carolina will be a prostrate State, crying for sympathy and help. Let us trust that the time has come for the people to help themselves, and in doing so, raise their Commonwealth to a pinacle of grandeur and prosperity such as even its proud history has never known.

"REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLE" AND THE INDEPENDENT REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT

The burden of the song of the Chamberlain Ring and their organs is that the integrity of "the party" is of more consequence than honest government, and that any Republican who votes for Green and Delaney is a traitor to the Republican party and false to Republican principles. In all humility we beg leave to suggest that the persons who are candidates for office in the interest of a corrupt Ring, and the few newspapers which live and move and have their being by and in that Ring, are hardly the disinterested and unselfish counsellors that they claim to be. It is safer to go outside of the charmed circle, and ascertain what is advised by Republicans whose honesty is as great as their integrity, who were Republicans when Democracy was in the ascendant, and who are as true now to Republicanism as they were while slavery existed and most of the South Carolina white Republicans were red-hot Democrats in the South or obscure demagogues in the North. Their opinions are entitled to weight, and for that reason they are carefully excluded from the columns of the organs of the Chamberlain Ring. It is in our power, however, to lay these opinions before the public, and we mean to do it.

1. The New York Times is known everywhere as a powerful Republican newspaper; it advocates Republican principles in season and out of season. This paper heartily approves of the Independent Republican movement, and says that, whatever may be the immediate result, "The final effect cannot be good." It says, further, that, in the organization of the Independent Republican movement, the colored people have made "a long step forward."

2. The New York Evening Post, a Republican newspaper which circulates among the upper-ten, declares that "the political signs from South Carolina are favorable"; and that it has very gratifying assurances that "the colored voters are beginning to perceive that they have been used too long by unscrupulous politicians" (of the Chamberlain-Bowen school) "who have employed partisan prejudices to promote their own private fortunes." And The New York Tribune, an unfaltering friend of the colored Republicans, talks in the same strain, and gives the Independent Republican movement its warm approval.

3. One of the strongest Republican newspapers in New England is The Springfield Republican (Mass.) which sees in the new movement an evidence of good faith on the part of the Conservatives, and of sagacity and honesty on the part of the Independent Republicans.

The newspapers whose opinions we have quoted represent, in large part, the sentiments and opinions of the people who pushed the war against the South, and insisted on the abolition of slavery. They say, without a dissenting voice, that the Independent Republican movement is right and wise and just. On the other side, a marked man, stands C. C. Bowen, who, in printed handbills, speaks of Judge Green as "the Democratic candidate for Governor." Colored Republicans! whom will you believe, the men and newspapers who fought your battles when you were powerless to help yourselves, or the men and the newspapers whose love for you only began when you had office and public plunder to bestow upon them?

Sunday Morning, July 12, 1874

The Warning

If there be anything wanting to the argument we have persistently urged upon the Republicans of this State, it is contained in the following extract from an editorial in The New York Times, General Grant's especial organ. In speaking of what General Grant has said about South Carolina, the Times says: "He (General Grant) further added that unless a true reform was begun at once in South Carolina, the Republican party would this fall repudiate the so-called Republicans of the State. In fact, this is what the Republicans of the North have already done. The Triumph of Moses and his gang would be only the triumph of corruption, and that the people of this country will not stand.

If we do not heed this warning in time, there will not be enough left of our organization next year to make a respectable ward meeting. We cannot fight the Democrats here, General Grant and the whole country beside. We cannot afford to commit political suicide, and we are not going.

CHARLESTON, S. C., FRIDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 2, 1874

The Fair Play Meeting

A Grand Gathering of Republicans and Conservatives—Harmony Prevails and Nothing Asked but Fair Play

The meeting last night was one of the most extraordinary gatherings ever held in Charleston. Upwards of four thousand of our citizens irrespective of party, assembled together and raised their voices in the interests of fair play for one and all.

Men of culture and wealth, stood side by side, with the honest and industrious workingmen. Republican and Conservative, white men and colored men, Chamberlain men and Green men stood shoulder to shoulder bearing in mind the great object of the meeting and for the time being casting aside all thoughts of party spirit. It seemed to be well understood by each and every man in the vast assemblage that this was not the time nor place to urge the claim of any particular candidates, and the harmony that prevailed reflected the most unbounded credit on the citizens of Charleston.

Let it here be distinctly understood that the objection to the commissioners of election does not imply an objection to either of them individually but it is claimed that one of them should at least give place to a representative of the other side. If Thompson and Smith are candidates for election to any office, and the three commissioners of election are all Thompson men, it is natural that the supporters of Smith should be dissatisfied, but by appointing one Smith man all suspicions of unfair play will be removed.

Col. E. W. M. Mackey called the meeting to order from the steps of the City Hall at 8 o'clock and upon his motion it was organized with the following officers:

President—The Hon. H. D. Lesesne.

Vice-Presidents—Mayor C. I. Cunningham, Ex-Gov. Wm. Aiken, Coroner Aaron Logan, Mr. E. B. Seabrook, Mr. S. Y. Tupper, Alderman W. J. McKinlay, Senator S. E. Gaillard, Hon. Henry Gourdin, Mr. John F. Taylor, Rev. E. J. Adams, Mr. Andrew Simonds, Mr. H. H. DeLeon, Mr. C. O. Witte, Alderman S. B. Garrett, Mr. Hugh Ferguson, Mr. J. W. Reed, Alderman John A. Godfrey, Mr. B. Bollman, Mr. B. O'Neill, Capt. J. C. Clausen, Mr. Stephen Brown, Mr. W. A. Courtenay.

Secretaries—Mr. J. A. Mushington, Mr. C. O. Trumbo, Capt. Alex Williams.

Mr. Lesesne opened the meeting with a most appropriate address, in which he stated ... meeting, at his leisure, who shall present by letter or otherwise, the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the Governor of the State, and require of him, as necessary for the preservation of public peace, that he do remove the said commissioners of election, or a majority of them, and appoint, in their stead, commissioners of known integrity, intelligence and impartiality, who will see that in every matter pertaining to the election, equal and exact justice shall be done to all citizens, irrespective of class, color or political party; and further, that the said committee shall, in the event of the refusal of the Executive to grant this request, call a mass meeting of the people to take such action as will then be necessary.

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the chairman of this meeting, at his leisure, who shall immediately ascertain what protection can be secured to the voters of Charleston County under the United States laws relating to elections, which committee shall immediately report the result of their investigations, through the public prints, with such recommendations for the guidance of the citizens as they may deem advisable.

After the reading of the above preamble and resolutions, Mr. Joseph W. Barnwell addressed the meeting, and was followed by the Hon. G. A. Trenholm, who spoke with much eloquence and at considerable length.

Mr. Trenholm, holding the Chronicle in his hand, read therefrom the following extract from the third plank of the Republican platform: "We shall hold all men as enemies to equality of rights who interfere with the ballot or deny the free and lawful exercise of its use to any citizen, whatever may be his party creed."

He called attention to the fact that these sentiments were in the Republican platform and were published in the Charleston Chronicle, the only Republican paper in this city; but, strange to say, this portion of his speech does not seem to have made a great impression on either the News and Courier reporter or the Sun man. For the News and Courier fails to report it, and the Sun does not shine upon it.

The Hon. A. J. Ransier then took the platform, but his address was interrupted by an unlooked for incident.

A number of policemen having in charge some of the men who were wounded in the fracas with the strikers, of which an account is given elsewhere in this issue, were seen marching down Meeting street followed by a considerable crowd. The bigger crowd seeing the others, and not knowing what was up, became demoralized, and a panic ensued followed by a general stampede.

SPEECH OF W. A. HAYNE, OF MARION,

On Outrages In Edgefield County S. C.

The House, in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration the following message from His Excellency:

State of South Carolina,
Executive Chamber,
Columbia, March 1, 1876.

Hon. Robert B. Elliott, Speaker House of Representatives:

Sir:—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives and concurred in by the Senate, by which I am requested to report to this General Assembly at the earliest practicable moment all the facts and information in my possession in relation to outrages alleged to have been committed recently in Edgefield County.

I have the honor, in reply, to say that the information received by me respecting the matter referred to is, in substance, that, on the night of the 11th of February, some twenty-five or thirty mounted men, in disguise, went to the house of James Perry, living near Ridge Spring, in the County of Edgefield; that they found in the house Freeman Gardner, his wife, Julia Brooks, a woman between seventy and eighty years of age, and Zilpha Hill, a young woman—all colored; that this disguised band took all four of the immates of the house to a point of about a mile and a quarter distant and then stripped and whipped them all; that after the whipping was over, the woman, Patsey Gardner, was severely and systematically burned by the application of liquid sealing wax or burning pitch to her back and limbs; that the young woman, Zilpha Hill, who was pregnant was also beaten and severely abused, to such an extent as to endanger her life; that the only pretext for this conduct was given in a remark of one of the disguised band about John Gaston's goods.

This is the account given by the victims of the outrage, and the condition of the woman, Patsey Gardner, seems to indicate the truth of her statements as to the injuries inflicted upon this woman.

This is the substance of the information in my hands at the present time.

Very respectfully,
(Signed) D. H. Chamberlain, Governor.

Mr. Hayne said:

Mr. Chairman—Perhaps no member regrets this outrage more than I do, for in the last campaign it was my earnest desire, yea, the height of my ambition, to bring about not only purity in my party, but harmony between the two races, and therefore my regret. I am disappointed, almost discouraged, for it seems as though 'tis love's labor lost. But, sir, just so long as the newspapers of the country continue to exert their influence in this direction will our State be disgraced by these foul outrages. They fire up the hatred of the hot headed, indiscreet youths of the State by their incendiary articles, and make them believe that to slay and scourge all who differ from them in opinion are doing God and their country a service. They never heap the ashes of charitable oblivion upon the coals of prejudice and hate, but continue to replenish it with the most exciting and fiery appeals. The Edgefield paper makes light of this dastardly violence done to aged and inoffensive women by ascribing it as the work of "rash boys." Manly pastime for these brave boys! a crime sir, that in any other State, and done to any other class, would have demanded and met with immediate punishment, perhaps in the Court of Judge Lynch, as was the case in Marlboro County a few weeks ago, when a white lady was abused, the perpetrators, two colored men, met with immediate punishment. They would not have brooked the law's delay. Yea, sir, an outraged community would have taught these "rash boys" a lesson that I fear they will learn in no other school, and the courteous Sheriff would not have been put to the trouble of "inviting them to be arrested."

But, Mr. Chairman, it happens to be the poor despised Africans who have tilled their fields for centuries, educated and amassed for them princely fortunes, and while they were engaged in riveting tighter the chains of bondage, were engaged in the care and protection of their defenceless families. Mr. Chairman, I ask, is this the mode to bring about harmony and prosperity? Will this tranquilize this already distracted country? No, sir. On the contrary, it will raise to its highest temperature the ill feelings of an outraged people, and cause them to adopt for their redress lex talionis, in opposition to the Edgefield lex loci, as Mr. McDuffe truthfully says, "God has planted in the breast of man a higher and holier principle than that by which he is prompted to resist oppression; the vilest reptile that crawls on the earth, without the gift of reason to comprehend the injustice of its injuries, would bite, or sting, or bruise the hand by which they were inflicted. Is it to be expected, then, that freemen will patiently bow down and kiss the rod of the oppressors?" I had hoped that the swift retribution that followed the K. K's reign, and the withering rebuke administered by their own counsel, (Hon. Reverdy Johnson,) would have put an end to these inhuman and disgusting outrages; but, sir, the newspapers must live and thrive, and this can only be done by a healthy subscription list, and, in order to swell that list, they must excite the worst passions of depraved men and pander to their prejudices.

Are the disgraceful scenes that darkened the history of South Carolina and cast a foul blot upon her proud escutcheon to be re-enacted? It must not. If we expect to enjoy peace and prosperity in our State, we must be more mindful of the rights of each other, more tolerant in our political views, and finally, leave the punishment of violators of the law to Courts of Justice, and not constitute ourselves a Vigilance Committee for every imaginary wrong. The Courts are certainly doing their duty, as our increased appropriation for the penitentiary will evince. If this course of action is followed, then, and not until then, will South Carolina blossom as the rose, and peace and prosperity flow as a river within her borders.

Again, Mr. Chairman, if the people of that and any other County would only turn away from the siren voice of selfish office-seekers, and put in office men who would dare to do their duty at all times and in all places, without fear, favor or impartiality, then, sir, would their rights be secured, and they would sit down under their own vine and fig-tree, with none daring to molest or make afraid; then would these lawless men respect the rights of the occupants of the humblest cabin; for the law properly administered would indeed be a terror to these evil doers, and wherever that aegis of America's honor, and her citizen's protection floats, men would fear to disregard the rights of his fellows or take the law into their own hands; and, my fellow-citizens, let me entreat you, in the exercise of your rights as citizens hereafter, select only such men as are worthy of these high offices—men who will do their duty. When I have given such advice hitherto you have scorned it, but take heed in future, for your interests, the security of your rights, make it an imperative duty on you.

Mr. Chairman, if departed spirits are visitants of this earth, and familiar with the actions of men, the spirits of the patriotic Rutledge and of the sainted Gasden must have wept tears of anguish over the degeneracy of these men bearing their patronymics as they witnessed the outrages (the details of which are heart sickening) which were perpetrated upon those inoffensive women. Has the chivalry of South Carolina degenerated thus far? Is this the work of her brave sons? Could they find no more worthy foe than an aged, infirm woman, brutally maltreated and her person exposed, who, even if guilty, should have excited their sympathy? Another, in a condition that would have appealed not in vain to the protection of savages, much less civilized men, cruelly beaten, and her life and that of her unborn child endangered thereby. Shame on you, degenerate sons of a brave and chivalrous ancestry! The recording angel in heaven's chancery must have shed tears as, with his diamond pen, he noted this additional evidence of man's depravity. I am no advocate of the "bloody shirt" doctrine, neither do I endorse the rash sentiments expressed by the member from Charleston, (Mr. Davis); but inasmuch as His Excellency has furnished this House with official information of this outrage, I have felt it my duty as a representative to express in positive, forcible terms my utter abhorrence and condemnation of this brutal outrage. The Governor has faithfully performed his duty in furthering the arrest of the guilty parties, and I hope the Court of justice will administer a lesson that will not soon be forgotten by that community. The laws are adequate; we simply require efficient and faithful officers to execute them; and as a legislative body we have done our duty in condemning this outrage, the punishment of which we leave to another tribunal—the Nemesis of justice.

THE HIPPODROME

Second Days Exhibition!

They go for a Reporter And Catch a Tartar!

Large Attendance but Poor Performance.

The exhibition at this place of amusement yesterday was of only an indifferent character. Unless the managers improve the show in some way, it will hardly draw for many more performances. True, the tricks of the acrobats are worthy of mention; the riding passable, and the performance of the numerous ring-masters tolerably creditable; but the "dagger pitchers" and "revolver-swallowers," and inferior parts assigned to the clowns in the ring, were altogether too limited to please the amusement-loving public. There must be more robber declarations and full-blooded excited performances anxious for bloody fames, or the thing will be a failure. This pretense of fight won't do; there must be a regular shooting and dying for principle, or we shall pronounce your cheap show a humbug; and some of you at least know that no third rate "Punch and Judy" exhibition will be tolerated by the party in power in South Carolina. With this warning and introduction, we proceed to give an account of the performance.

The mob was called to order precisely at 1 o'clock, temporary President Swails in the chair. The proceedings of the previous day were read from The Union-Herald in his hand, and called the attention of the assemblage to an article in that paper touching upon the subject of the raising of a chair by some member for the purpose of annihilating the present Governor of South Carolina. Smalls succeeded in raising a turbulent discussion about nothing, and a general discussion of the subject by the windy members of the convention, for some two hours, in which many of the "end men" took part.

The more intelligent members of the hippodrome took no part in the discussion, with the exception of the Governor, who, in a very dignified manner, informed them that he had feared no bodily harm from any of them; that he had witnessed such scenes before, and was quietly engaged in preparation for any trap that might be sprung upon the decent members of the convention, after the riot should have spent itself.

At this point, Maxwell, the tragedian from Marlboro, obtained the floor. He is one of the most amusing characters connected with the big show. He hadn't "seen any chairs raised," and, folding his arms and throwing himself back in a tragic and majestic position, said: "I, gentlemen, was the coolest of the cool." This remark, brought the house down. The worst of them were compelled to laugh; especially those who know he never keeps cool. He wound up his harangue by saying that the day was fast approaching when men would seek their rights on the ... face to face with newspaper men ... got the floor....

After other speeches, of a like nature, Captain Canton, city editor of The Union-Herald, stepped in front of the reporters table, read the article, and explained to them how he obtained his information and what he saw with his own eyes, winding up, after being interrupted several times, by telling them that "newspaper men were abundantly able to take care of themselves."

The discussion continued until Elliott moved that the whole matter be laid upon the table, which was agreed to.

Mr. Keegan, the correspondent of The Washington Chronicle, had listened to their foul language of denunciation of himself and others of his profession, and seeing the question closed, the vilified correspondent, sought his hat, and turning round to the assembled mob, told them they had denounced him like a dog, and had denied him the right to defend himself. This remark of the correspondent cowed the more ignorant portion of the gang, and the resolution was withdrawn, which permitted him to explain to them as the representative of a Republican paper, a gentleman and a soldier; that he had fought to free them; fought against his own father, who owned 150 of their kind, and was a Major in the 5th Louisiana Regiment; that he fought for principle, while his father fought for property; that he had been sent to Columbia to report their doings and sayings, and to see if there was a possible hope of good government in South Carolina.

This stopped the war upon the newspaper men. We devoutly hope that when he goes back across the Potomac he may....

ROBERTSON'S EXPULSION

An Interesting Report of the Proceedings in the House

The School-Book Culprit's Speech in His Own Defense—His Attack Upon Mr. Cathcart and The News and Courier—A Pleasant Colloquy Between Hamilton and Leslie—The Close of the Discussion and Its Result

(From our special correspondent)

Columbia, S. C. February 25.—This has been a regular field day in the House, very nearly the entire session being devoted to a discussion of the report of the committee on privileges and elections concerning the guilt and expulsion of J. D. Robertson, of Beaufort.

Mr. Crittenden resumed, in a review of the evidence. He briefly reviewed his own remarks of yesterday, and then proceeded to quote from the letters of Robertson, while so endeavoring to benefit the children of South Carolina, had never informed the commission of his plans up to December 30th. One point Mr. Robertson had made was that Ivison, Blakeman & Co. were disappointed and for that reason they had made an attack upon him. This, Mr. Crittenden said, was too thin, as the publishers referred to were not that kind of men. He then concluded by saying that he hoped the time had come when the people of South Carolina would show to the world that the time had passed when the adventurers could come from other portions of the country, and with professions of love for the negroes and children of the State, take advantage of their own pockets. The colored people had learned better sense than to trust such people any longer.

Curtis, who was acting speaker, here asked what construction the House placed on Act 2, section 16 of the constitution, which relates to the number of votes required to expel a member, from the floor. Mr. Orr held that the Supreme Court had decided that two-thirds of the number present were competent to expel. Some one else claimed that it required two-thirds of all the members on roll. The speaker here cited a case in the House Journals in which it was decided that two-thirds of the members present was sufficient. Mr. Brayton stated that two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate were necessary to impeach a judge, and he thought that as much consideration should be shown to the members of the House. In justice to themselves they ought to insist upon the passage of the following resolution:

Resolved, that it is the sense of this House that in order to expel a member a two-thirds vote of all the members elected is required.

Freeman, of Charleston, spoke against the resolution, taking the same ground as that held by Mr. Orr.

Bampfield rose to a point of order that it was the duty of the chair to decide. If necessary an appeal could be had.

The chair stated that if he decided it would be in favor of the view that it required two-thirds of the members present.

Freeman thought it very strange that no defense had been offered by the friends of the accused, and proposed to amend Brayton's resolution by striking out "elected" and inserting "present."

Mr. Orr said that no resolution of ruling of the chair was necessary as they had the decision of the Supreme Court on the matter, and that was their law. Richardson's Supreme Court Reports, volume 4, has already decided this question, and he didn't see the use of construing the law when it was already construed by such authority.

Chancellor Johnson stated that the matter was purely a constitutional question, and he quoted from the Constitution to show that the House had the right to decide all such questions, for itself.

On motion the resolution of Mr. Brayton was laid on the table.

Hirsch then called for a ruling from the chair, and the chair decided that it would require two-thirds of the members present. The Saint here became very much agitated, and requested that he be allowed to speak in his own behalf, as no one else saw fit to take up his cause. The request was granted, and he then spoke as follows:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I will in the outset simply draw your attention to the fact that my accuser has never put his foot on the soil of South Carolina. If the House will not defend me the courts will. No witnesses have been called here, and when I asked you for your protection I am taunted with the fact that I have offered no defence. If I had been accused in a trial justice's court I would have had the proofs, and would have the right to meet my accuser face to face. But here, when my reputation and the reputation of my innocent children are at stake, I am proved beyond doubt, and by respectable witnesses, to be a wilful falsifier and perverter of the truth. Take notice of this telegram from an honorable house, Messrs. Armstrong, Scribner & Co.: "We have heard threats that the books chosen shall not succeed, and that you shall be ruined." This is not the first time that Ivison, Blakeman & Co., have made a similar fight to this in the North. They have done so hundreds of times. I ask the patience of the House, which has my future weal or woe in their hands, to hear me yet further. Strike if you will but for Heaven's sake hear me. Another curious phase of this matter is that the house of Ivison, Blakeman & Co., when it suits their convenience, do not hesitate to publish confidential communications. And I would say here that a member of this House has done the same thing, viz, has divulged to the press what took place in the committee room, for his own ends.

Mr. Orr here rose and said that if Robertson referred to him he told a malicious falsehood, and that he would get his pay for it.

Robertson said he had no doubt he would get paid for it; that he had not mentioned Orr's name, but if he saw fit to appropriate the remark he could not help it.

The speaker here interrupted, and put an end to the controversy.

Robertson continued: That he had married into one of the best families of the State, and that his blood was mingled with theirs, &c.

Holland, a coal-black representative, for what purpose or actuated by what impulse must ever remain a mystery, here interrupted, and asked if Robertson referred to him. Mr. Robertson said no, he did not refer to him. This produced a roar of laughter all over the House which the speaker had great difficulty in suppressing.

Robertson continued: I have written some foolish things, it is true, but I am done with Cathcart and Ivison, Blakeman & Co. Remember the words of the Holy Writ: "Judge not that ye be not judged." I will now refer to the letter which the gentleman from Greenville rolled as a sweet morsel under his tongue yesterday. That letter was confidential, and you must remember that all this trouble is made up out of confidential letters. Which of you would be willing to have his confidential letters published? Concerning Guerad, I certainly did offer to help him get a situation, as he was worthy and needy. I was asked by him and endeavored to get it for him; and who would not do the same? Mr. Robertson then referred to his letter in The News and Courier, which, he said, the publishers of the paper had done him the justice to publish, and which contained a full account of the whole matter in plain terms, without any attempt to conceal or pervert the facts.

Mr. Robertson's time here expired, but on motion of Whipper he was allowed fifteen minutes longer. He continued: Recollect that two constructions can be placed upon this matter. One will ruin me and the other will not. Choose between them.

Hamilton interrupted. What particular portion of the letters do you deny?

Robertson. What I object to in this investigation is that copies of letters are given here purporting to be mine, when I cannot tell whether they are mine or not. Gentlemen, what can I say more? I built the first schoolhouse that was ever built in my district, and supported the first teacher we had to teach the colored children in it. And now, gentlemen for this I am to be expelled; expelled because I have labored for the good of the children of the State; because in my anxiety I wrote letters which the secretary of the commission ought to have written himself. Gentlemen I am done. "Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone."

Hamilton. Keep down then, it is where you belong, and if you had your deserts you ought to be down and out of the House. Hamilton then went on, saying that he proposed to divest himself of all personal feelings. He proposed to speak as he thought the people would have him speak—justly. The first ground that he took against Robertson was that he believed him guilty and thought that every man in South Carolina believed the same and I will say as he says, "Out of thy mouth thou shalt be convicted." No private confidential letters could benefit the children of the State; they benefit only the man who writes them. These letters undoubtedly were written to benefit himself, not the children. I express the sentiment of my people when I say that he is guilty of murder, not of manslaughter. This man and such as he have done an immense harm, and it is time we were getting rid of them. We can't hold that class of men and be successful in politics. It is with pain that I utter what I do. If this were some other occasion, and the gentleman was from some other county, I ... of ... Cathcart. Hayne then went into a review of the testimony, concluding with the remark that as to the expulsion of Mr. Robertson bringing disgrace upon his children he did not deny; it was mournful that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon their children.

Black ... Davis then got up, and, as usual, talked a great deal and said very little. The general tenor of the harangue, however, was that if they expelled Robertson they would establish a precedent that would work harm for the party. They would be opening a door that they might not be able to shut when they wanted to. That Republican material was scarce, and if they punished this man it would discourage other white carpet-baggers from coming down and help lead the party in this State.

Freeman of Charleston, then followed in a strong speech against Robertson. He said that the question was one of peculiar significance. It was whether the colored men of the State were able to lead themselves, and capable of upholding their self-respect. He had remained silent until he had heard the defence entirely exhausted, and he was forced to say that the accused had in his defence done nothing but make an admission that the charges were true. He then read a letter of Robertson's dated June 2d. This, he said, was a confidential letter, and no public servant had the right to write such confidential letters to put money in their own pockets. If he (Robertson) knew that it was the character of these Northern firms to defraud the people of the different States, as he says he did, then why did he go to them? If he knew that they were swindlers, why did he go to them to strike a bargain for the State. Robertson had cast an insult upon the colored men that would not be tolerated by any other race upon the face of the globe. He had flung out to the world the insinuation—nay, the assertion—that the colored members of the Legislature were for sale on every question. He hoped that the colored members would assert their self-respect and hurl back the charge with scorn, and show to the world that they had some sense of honor, and will not be duped by unprincipled carpet-baggers any longer.

Whipper then followed in a harangue in support of Robertson, taking the old ground that the letters were not certified to, and incompetent as testimony, &c., and wound up with a customary slash at The News and Courier.

Mr. Brayton, of Aiken, followed Whipper in a strong technical argument in support of Robertson, in which he claimed that the form of trial was illegal, and the testimony was insufficient and ex parte; not touching upon the guilt or innocence of Robertson at all.

The accusers and defenders had exhausted their rhetoric and the patience of their audience and themselves, so a vote was taken on the question of expulsion, and resulted as follows—56 yeas and 25 nays. A few moments later and the hall was silent and in darkness.

Nesbit and Pinckney, however, it seems, hadn't had enough of the fight inside, but went to abusing each other about the course they had pursued. Pinckney voted for expulsion and Nesbit against it, and after some words they went to bruising each other in a way that must have shocked the effigy of the father of their country, around whose bronze form they shinned so mildly. The entertainment broke up, however, before the gladiators had entirely demolished each other.

The discussion of the Robertson matter in the House, if it has done nothing else, has very clearly demonstrated that the majority of the colored people of the State are tired of their carpet-bagger leaders, and do not propose to be led by them any longer.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] These articles were arranged by Monroe N. Work.

---

BOOK REVIEWS

Fifty Years in the Gospel Ministry. By Theophilus Gould Steward. The African Methodist Episcopal Book Concern, 631 Pine Street, Philadelphia, 1922. Pp. 520.

This is an autobiography covering the period from 1864 to 1914. It carries an introduction by Dr. Reverdy C. Ransom, the editor of the African Methodist Episcopal Church Review. Inasmuch as it is the record of a distinguished minister in one of the leading Negro denominations, it throws much light on this period, not only in ecclesiastical affairs but in matters touching the life and development of this race during that period. This is apparent to one observing that the book covers the author's twenty-seven years in the pastorate, sixteen years as a chaplain in the United States army, seven years as a professor in Wilberforce University, two of his trips to Europe and one to Mexico. The book is illustrated, but it has no index.

Taking up the work of the General Conference of 1864, the author says much to give the reader an insight into the characters and efforts of the leading churchmen of his denomination at that time. Among those passing in review are Bishops Quinn, Payne, and Nazrey, and others like H. M. Turner and Alexander W. Wayman who later became bishops of that denomination. Then follows his trip South, when the author had the opportunity to participate in the early efforts for the uplift of the freedmen, serving in Georgia and in South Carolina. He then tells how he arose to a position of usefulness and later served larger groups of communicants in Philadelphia and the District of Columbia. Referring to his record as a chaplain in the United States army, the author shows a larger acquaintance with the leading Negro statesmen through whom he obtained the position. The account of his services in this capacity, both in this country and abroad, and especially in the Philippine Islands, sets forth information, not only as to what that portion of the world was doing, but the reaction of this educated Negro to this panorama. Other interesting experiences appear in the account of his extensive travels.

The value of the book is incalculable when one takes into consideration the dearth of such literature bearing on Negroes. This work takes rank with the recent volume of Bishop Coppin entitled Unwritten History, for certainly there are to be found therein interesting romances taken from the life of the Negro and recorded by one of the race in the manner in which these things were impressed upon him and found expression in his mind. This is the sort of literature for which the public has patiently waited and it is devoutly to be desired that other churchmen may find time to leave a written record like these of Bishop Coppin and Chaplain Steward. For anyone desirous of studying the history of the Negro in its various ramifications, such works are indispensable.

---

The Negro in Literature and Art. By Benjamin Brawley. Duffield and Company, New York, 1921. Pp. 197.

This is a revised edition of Professor Brawley's work which appeared in 1918. It follows the general outline of the first edition and sets forth additional facts but not sufficient to justify this claim to revision. The work is biographical, largely devoted to the narrative of the careers of Phyllis Wheatley, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Charles W. Chesnutt, W. E. B. Dubois, William Stanley Braithwaite, Frederick Douglass, Booker Washington, Henry O. Tanner, Meta Warrick Fuller, and Charles S. Gilpin. The unsatisfactory short sketch of Gilpin constitutes the best claim of the work to that of a revised edition.

While this work does not show by historic or philosophical development the evolution of the Negro mind as expressed in the achievements of the race in literature and art, it has some value. To have a publisher place before the public the sketches of so many prominent Negroes who might otherwise remain unknown to the public is a service to be appreciated. The world has too long considered the Negro a human machine restricted to drudgery. Any successful effort, therefore, to bring before the public from time to time the achievements of worthy Negroes, although it may be a repetition of what may be well known to the better informed few, must be welcomed as an undertaking having a direct bearing on popularizing the record of a neglected seventh of the population of the world.

Let us hope, however, that in the near future some other author, grasping more correctly the needs of the time, may set forth in literary form the interesting story of how history has been influenced by the Negro during the various stages of the world's progress and especially how the Negro of today functions efficiently in the life of Europe and America. The public will welcome too a work treating the eloquent appeals of Negro orators, the beautiful poetry voicing the strivings of this oppressed group, and its peculiar philosophy of life constructed while enduring the ordeal of racial proscription.

---

The Free Negro in Maryland, 1634-1860. By James M. Wright. Longmans, Green and Company, New York; P. S. King and Son, Ltd., London, 1921. Pp. 362.

This is a study in a neglected field of American history. Hitherto very little has been done to inform the world as to the actual contribution of the free Negro prior to the Civil War. Few persons realize that there were half a million such Negroes in the United States at that time. It is a mistake, therefore, to consider this better selected group of the race so insignificant as not to influence the history of the communities in which they lived. A number of histories have been written since the Civil War, however, with a view to meeting this need for a treatment of this neglected group. There have appeared John H. Russell's Free Negro in Virginia and Brackett's The Negro in Maryland. But unfortunately such works have been too rigidly restricted to the discussion of the Negro's legal, social, and religious status as determined by the laws enacted for these purposes in the South rather than to the study of the free Negro himself. As it is well known that many of these laws were never enforced, we are still at sea as to what the free Negro actually was and what he was doing.

While Professor Wright has not altogether succeeded in meeting the requirements for this more scientific study of the free Negro, he has done his task much better than those who have hitherto invaded this field. In addition to covering the ground of other such studies he has undertaken to give the historic background and by statistical method he has presented valuable information as to the apprenticeship of Negro children, the occupations and wages of free Negroes, their acquisition of property, their education and their religious strivings.

In his long-drawn-out conclusion he does not seem to have an altogether favorable impression as to the rôle played by the free Negro in the State of Maryland. He shows that the Negro was led to despise himself in keeping with the policy of regarding the white man as the superior and the Negro as the inferior. Professor Wright says, however, that the perpetuation of such a handicap for the most needy part of the population was probably not sound social policy. Upon the whites the effects were first to cause at least a formal realization of race solidarity, and secondly, to intensify class lines within the ranks, although not to define the "poor whites" as rigidly as in certain of the sister slave States. On the whole, Professor Wright believes that the free Negro was an asset to the State, but one laden with many of the characteristics of a liability. "The managers of the corporate body to which he (the Negro) belonged," says the writer, "would have been relieved, could they have written him as an item off their accounts. Nevertheless the sympathetic personal attachment of many whites to individual negro servants, whether slave or free, was permanent." Thus ends an informing book with several misconceptions, but nevertheless fraught with valuable facts.

---

Batouala. By René Maran. Albin Michel, Editor. Paris, 1921. Pp. 189.

This is a novel which was awarded the Goncourt prize in 1921. Inasmuch as it is socially historical, it contains many facts throwing light on the conditions of Africa. Born on the Island of Martinique where the conditions of colonial rule were different from those obtaining in Africa, the scenes of which inspired this indictment of the white man's civilization, René Maran doubtless found the situation there so revolting that it evoked from him this work. Without concealing the faults of the natives, Maran discusses the robber concession companies in Africa, forced labor, high taxes and exorbitant prices for goods sold to the natives. Inasmuch as there were no railroads or "pack animals," the Negroes themselves were impressed into a "pack-man system" which together with the Tsetse fly has worked havoc in Africa. The author maintains that this "pack carrying" has caused the death of more than one million Negroes and cites as evidence that in one town the blacks rebelled against this portage service because it was considered better to die than to undergo such a hardship. The book is intended to emphasize the importance of remedying these abuses and suggests as the proper reform that the concessions granted these private companies should be withdrawn and that nature should be given the opportunity to repair the damage done by white men.

This is a stirring note from a man of African blood speaking for Africa from the point of view of the native himself. It is a distinct contribution in that we have a different view from that appearing in the works of white men who have travelled through that continent, seeing it from the outside and then only "through a glass darkly." The cause of truth in that quarter is now fortunate in having there a number of intelligent Africans who, after having been trained in the mission schools and in the best universities of Europe and America, are now beginning to give the other phase of the social, economic, and political questions in Africa. Many of the conditions which have long obtained in that continent have continued for the reason that persons on the outside who might have been struck with holy horror, had such been known, have never learned and, therefore, can hardly realize that such appalling conditions exist. For this valuable contribution, not only from the literary point of view, but from that of the investigator of social and economic problems, the public must feel indebted to René Maran.

---

NOTES

The first Spring Conference of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History was held in the city of New York on April 3d and 4th. There was a preliminary mass meeting on Sunday, the 2d, at the Mother A. M. E. Zion Church, where Mr. James F. Morton, Prof. John R. Hawkins, and Dr. C. G. Woodson delivered addresses which were enthusiastically received.

On Monday and Tuesday, the 3d and 4th, when the actual meeting began, a larger number of persons from afar were present. The day sessions were held at the 135th Street Branch Library where, on Tuesday morning, Dr. George E. Haynes, Secretary of the Race Commission of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ, opened the discussion of the question "Why one race should know the other one." Other persons participating in the discussion and giving additional information as to the bright prospects for the cooperation of the races in the country were Bishop R. A. Carter, and Cleveland Allen who availed himself of the opportunity to emphasize the importance of placing the bust of Frederick Douglass in the New York Hall of Fame.

At the first evening session held at the Concord Baptist Church in Brooklyn the following evening there was a large attendance. The meeting was opened by preliminary remarks by the Director. He was followed by Prof. Albert Bushnell Hart of Harvard University who delivered an informing address on "Involuntary Servitude." Remarks as to the importance of this organization and how the work may be more successfully prosecuted were made by Bishop R. A. Carter of the C. M. E. Church, Bishop Lee of the A. M. E. Z. Church and by Dr. George Frazier Miller, Dr. H. H. Proctor, Dr. W. H. Brown, and Rev. J. B. Adams.

On the following day, the morning session opened with a discussion on "How to promote the Study of Negro History in the Schools," led by Mr. Thomas C. Williams of the Bordentown Industrial School. He brought forward valuable statistics out of his own experience as a teacher in this field and presented several suggestions and plans for the promotion of this work. There followed some discussion of an informing nature by Dr. I. Garland Penn, Secretary of the Methodist Episcopal Church Board of Education for Negroes, and by Dr. W. Y. Bell, who spoke of his researches in the sources bearing on the history of the Negro in Africa.

The Conference closed with an evening session at the Mother A. M. E. Zion Church where addresses were delivered by Dr. I. Garland Penn and Dr. C. G. Woodson. The address of Dr. Penn dealt primarily with the Negro as a factor in church history. Beginning with the early struggles of the denominations and their relations to the Negroes, Dr. Penn enlightened the audience on facts which are not generally known to the public. He closed his informing address with the expression of faith in the importance of the church as a factor in the progress of the Negro. The address by the Director had to do primarily with the history of the Negro by cycles, showing the varying attitude of the white man toward the Negro and the successful efforts of the Negroes to rise in the midst of trying difficulties and to convince the world of their worth. On the whole, this first Spring Conference was a success and justified itself as an innovation.

---

The Quadrennial Address of the Bishops of the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church to the Fourteenth Session of the General Conference, held in St. Louis on the 3d of May, contains not only the information bearing on the church but a valuable retrospect as to the conditions among the Negroes after the World War. Among other topics are mentioned racial retrospect, race prejudice and race superiority, the aftermath of the war, the church and world conditions, and the reaction of white Christianity to lawlessness.

---

The Journal
of
Negro History