But Liberia, in the proper use of the term, is applied to all the settlements along the West Coast of Africa that were founded by Colored people from the United States. It is the most beautiful spot on the entire coast. The view is charming in approaching this country, Rev. Charles Rockwell says,—

"One is struck with the dark green hue which the rank and luxuriant growth of forest and of field everywhere presents. In this it respect it strongly resembles in appearance the dark forests of evergreens which line a portion of the coast of Eastern Virginia ... At different points there are capes or promontories rising from thirty to forty to one or two hundred feet above the level of the sea; while at other places the land, though somewhatuneven, has not, near the sea, any considerable hills. In some places near the mouths of the rivers are thickly wooded marshes; but on entering the interior of the country the ground gradually rises, the streams become rapid, and at the distance of twenty miles or more from the sea, hills, and beyond them mountains, are often met with."

The physical, social, and political bondage of the Colored people in America before the war was most discouraging. They were mobbed in the North, and sold in the South. It was not enough that they were isolated and neglected in the Northern States: they were proscribed by the organic law of legislatures, and afflicted by the most burning personal indignities. They had a few friends; but even their benevolent acts were often hampered by law, and strangled by caste-prejudice. Following the plans of Granville Sharp and William Wilberforce, Liberia was founded as a refuge to all Colored men who would avail themselves of its blessings.

Colonization societies sprang into being in many States, and large sums of money were contributed to carry out the objects of these organizations. Quite a controversy arose inside of anti-slavery societies, and much feeling was evinced; but the men who believed colonization to be the solution of the slavery question went forward without wavering or doubting. In March, 1820, the first emigrants sailed for Africa, being eighty-six in number; and in January, 1822, founded the town of Monrovia, named for President Monroe. Rev. Samuel J. Mills, while in college in 1806, was moved by the Holy Spirit to turn his face toward Africa as a missionary. His zeal for missionary labor touched the hearts of Judson, Newell, Nott, Hall, and Rice, who went to mission-fields in the East as early as 1812.[106] The American Colonization Society secured the services of the Rev. Samuel J. Mills and Rev. Ebenezer Burgess to locate the colony at Monrovia. Mr. Mills found an early, watery grave; but the report of Mr. Burgess gave the society great hope, and the work was carried forward.

The first ten years witnessed the struggles of a noble band of Colored people, who were seeking a new home on the edge of a continent given over to the idolatry of the heathen. The funds of the society were not as large as the nature and scope of the work demanded. Emigrants went slowly, not averaging more than 170 per annum,—only 1,232 in ten years: but the average from the first of January, 1848, to the last of December, 1852, was 540 yearly; and, in the single year of 1853, 782 emigrants arrived at Monrovia. In 1855 the population of Monrovia and Cape Palmas had reached about 8,000.

Going south from Monrovia for about one hundred miles, and inland about twenty, the country was inhabited by the Bassa tribe and its branches; numbering about 130,000 souls, and speaking a common language. "They were peaceful, domestic, and industrious; and, after fully supplying their own wants, furnish a large surplus of rice, oil, cattle, and other articles of common use, for exportation."[107] This tribe, like the Veis, of whom we shall make mention subsequently, have reduced their language to a written system. The New Testament has been translated into their language by a missionary, and they have had the gospel these many years in their own tongue.

The "Greybo language," spoken in and about Cape Palmas, has been reduced to a written form; and twenty thousand copies of eleven different works have been printed and distributed. There are about seventy-five thousand natives within fifty miles of Cape Palmas; and, as a rule, they desire to avail themselves of the blessings of civilization. The Veis occupy about fifty miles of seacoast; extending from Gallinas River, one hundred miles north of Monrovia, and extending south to Grand Mount. Their territory runs back from the seacoast about thirty miles, and they are about sixteen thousand strong.

This was a grand place to found a Negro state,—a missionary republic, as Dr. Christy terms it. When the republic rose, the better, wealthier class of free Colored people from the United States embarked for Liberia. Clergymen, physicians, merchants, mechanics, and school-teachers turned their faces toward the new republic, with an earnest desire to do something for themselves and race; and history justifies the hopes and players of all sincere friends of Liberia. Unfortunately, at the first, many white men were more anxious to get the Negro out of the country than to have him do well when out; and, in many instances, some unworthy Colored people got transportation to Liberia, of whom Americans were rid, but of whom Liberians could not boast. But the law of the survival of the fittest carried the rubbish to the bottom. The republic grew and expanded in every direction. From year to year new blood and fresh energy were poured into the social and business life of the people; and England, America, and other powers acknowledged the republic by sending resident ministers there.

The servants of Christ saw, at the earliest moment of the conception to build a black government in Africa, that the banner of the cross must wave over the new colony, if good were to be expected. The Methodist Church, with characteristic zeal and aggressiveness, sent with the first colonists several members of their denomination and two "local preachers;" and in March, 1833, the Rev. Melville B. Cox, an ordained minister of this church, landed at Monrovia. The mission experienced many severe trials; but the good people who had it in charge held on with great tenacity until the darkness began to give away before the light of the gospel. Nor did the Board of the Methodist Missionary Society in America lose faith. They appropriated for this mission, in 1851, $22,000; in 1852, $26,000; in 1853, $32,957; and in 1854, $32,957. In the report of the board of managers for 1851, the following encouraging statement occurs:—

"All eyes are now turned toward this new republic on the western coast of Africa as the star of hope to the colored people both bond and free, in the United States. The republic is establishing and extending itself; and its Christian population is in direct contact with the natives, both Pagans and Mohammedans. Thus the republic has, indirectly, a powerful missionary influence, and its moral and religious condition is a matter of grave concern to the Church. Hence the Protestant Christian missions in Liberia are essential to the stability and prosperity of the republic, and the stability and prosperity of the republic are necessary to the protection and action of the missions. It will thus appear that the Christian education of the people is the legitimate work of the missions."

At this time (1851) they had an annual Conference, with three districts, with as many presiding elders, whose duty it was to visit all the churches and schools in their circuit. The Conference had 21 members, all of whom were colored men. The churches contained 1,301 members, of whom 115 were on probation, and 116 were natives. There were 20 week-day schools, with 839 pupils, 50 of whom were natives. Then there Were seven schools among the natives, with 127 faithful attendants.

Bishop Scott, of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, was, by order of his Conference, sent on an official visit to Liberia. He spent more than two months among the missions, and returned in 1853 much gratified with the results garnered in that distant field.

"The government of the republic of Liberia, which is formed on the model of our own, and is wholly in the hands of colored men, seems to be exceedingly well administered. I never saw so orderly a people. I saw but one intoxicated colonist while in the country, and I heard not one profane word. The sabbath is kept with singular strictness, and the churches crowded with attentive and orderly worshippers."[108]

The above is certainly re-assuring, and had its due influence among Christian people at the time it appeared. At an anniversary meeting of the Methodist Church, held in Cincinnati, O., in the same year, 1853, Bishop Ames gave utterance to sentiments in regard to the character of the government of Liberia that quite shocked some pro-slavery people who held "hired pews" in the Methodist Church. His utterances were as brave as they were complimentary.

"Nations reared under religious and political restraint are not capable of self-government, while those who enjoy only partially these advantages have set an example of such capability. We have in illustration of this a well-authenticated historical fact: we refer to the colored people of this country, who, though they have grown up under the most unfavorable circumstances, were enabled to succeed in establishing a sound republican government in Africa. They have given the most clear and indubitable evidence of their capability of self-government, and in this respect have shown a higher grade of manhood than the polished Frenchman himself."[109]

The Presbyterian Board of Missions sent Rev. J.B. Pinny into the field in 1833. In 1837, missions were established among the natives, and were blessed with very good results. In 1850 there were, under the management of this denomination, three congregations, with 116 members, two ordained ministers, and a flourishing sabbath school. A high-school was brought into existence in 1852, with a white gentleman, the Rev D.A. Wilson, as its principal. It was afterward raised into a college, and was always crowded.

The American Protestant-Episcopal Church raised its missionary standard in Liberia in 1836. The Rev John Payne was at the head of this enterprise, assisted by six other clergymen, until 1850, when he was consecrated missionary bishop for Africa. He was a white gentleman of marked piety, rare scholarship, and large executive ability. The station at Monrovia was under the care of the Rev. Alexander Crummell, an educated and eloquent preacher of the Negro race. There was an excellent training-school for religious and secular teachers; there are several boarding-schools for natives, with an average attendance of a hundred; and up to 1850 more than a thousand persons had been brought into fellowship with this church.

The Foreign Missionary Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845 turned its attention to this fruitful field. In 1855, ten years after they began work, they had 19 religious and secular teachers, 11 day-schools, 400 pupils, and 484 members in their churches. There were 13 mission-stations, and all the teachers were colored men.

We have said, a few pages back in this chapter, that the Methodist Church was first on the field when the colony of Liberia was founded. We should have said one of the first; because we find, in "Gammell's History of the American Baptist Missions," that the Baptists were in this colony as missionaries in 1822, that under the direction of the Revs. Lot Carey and Collin Teage, two intelligent Colored Baptists, a church was founded. Mr. Carey was a man of most exemplary character. He had received an education in Virginia, where he had resided as a freeman for some years, having purchased his freedom by his personal efforts, and where also he was ordained in 1821.

"In September, 1826, he was unanimously elected vice-agent of the colony; and on the return of Mr. Ashmun to the United States, in 1828, he was appointed to discharge the duties of governor in the interim,—a task which he performed during the brief remnant of his life with wisdom, and with credit to himself. His death took place in a manner that was fearfully sudden and extraordinary. The natives of the country had committed depredations upon the property of the colony, and were threatening general hostilities. Mr. Carey, in his capacity as acting governor, immediately called out the military forces of the colony, and commenced vigorous measures for repelling the assault and protecting the settlements. He was at the magazine, engaged in superintending the making of cartridges, when by the oversetting of a lamp, a large mass of powder became ignited, and produced and explosion which resulted in the death of Mr. Carey, and seven others who were engaged with him. In this sudden and awful manner perished and extraordinary man,—one who in a higher sphere might have developed many of the noblest energies of character and who, even in the humble capacity of a missionary among his own benighted brethren, deserves a prominent place in the list of those who have shed lustre upon the African race.

"At the period of Mr. Carey's death, the church of which he was the pastor contained a hundred members, and was in a highly flourishing condition. It was committed to the charge of Collin Teage, who now returned from Sierra Leone, and of Mr. Waring, one of its members, who had lately been ordained a minister. The influences which had commenced with the indefatigable founder of the mission continued to be felt long after he had ceased to live. The church an Monrovia was increased to two hundred member; and the power of the gospel was manifested in other settlements of the Colonization Society, and even among the rude natives of the coast, of whom nearly a hundred were converted to Christianity, and united with the several churches of the colony."[110]

We regret that statistics on Liberia are not as full as desirable; but we have found enough to convince us that the cause of religion, education, and republican government are in safe hands, and on a sure foundation. There are now more than three thousand and eighteen hundred children, seven hundred of whom are natives;[111] and in the day-schools are gathered about two thousand bright and promising pupils.

Many noble soldiers of the cross have fallen on this field, where a desperate battle has been waged between darkness and light, heathenism and religion, the wooden gods of men and the only true God who made heaven and earth. Many have been mortally touched by the poisonous breath of African fever, and, like the sainted Gilbert Haven, have staggered back to home and friends to die. Few of the white teachers have been able to remain on the field. During the first thirty years of missionary effort in the field, the mortality among the white missionaries was terrible. Up to 1850 the Episcopal Church had employed twenty white teachers, but only three of them were left. The rest died, or were driven home by the climate. Of nineteen missionaries sent out by the Presbyterian Church up to 1850, nine died, seven returned home, and but three remained. The Methodist Church sent out thirteen white teachers: six died, six returned home, and but one remained. Among the colored missionaries the mortality was reduced to a minimum. Out of thirty-one in the employ of the Methodist Church, only seven died natural deaths, and fourteen remained in the service. On this subject of mortality, Bishop Payne says,—

"It is now very generally admitted, that Africa must be evangelized chiefly by her own children. It should be our object to prepare them, so far as we may, for their great work. And since colonists afford the most advanced material for raising up the needed instruments, it becomes us, in wise co-operation with Providence, to direct our efforts in the most judicious manner to them. To do this, the most important points should be occupied, to become in due time radiating centres of Christian influence to colonists and natives."[112]

In thirty-three years Liberia gained wonderfully in population, and, at the breaking-out of the Rebellion in the United States, had about a hundred thousand souls, besides the three hundred thousand natives in the vast territory over which her government is recognized. Business of every kind has grown up. The laws are wholesome; the law-makers intelligent and upright; the army and navy are creditable, and the republic is in every sense a grand success. Mr. Wilson says,—

"Trade is the chosen employment of the great mass of the Liberians, and some of them have been decidedly successful in this vocation. It consists in the exchange of articles of American or European manufacture for the natural products of the country; of which palm oil, cam-wood, and ivory are the principal articles. Cam-wood is a rich dye-wood, and is brought to Monrovia on the shoulders of the natives from a great distance. It is worth in the European and American markets from sixty to eighty dollars per ton. The ivory of this region does not form an important item of commerce. Palm-oil is the main article of export, and is procured along the seacoast between Monrovia and Cape Palmas. The Liberian merchants own a number of small vessels, built by themselves, and varying in size from ten or fifteen to forty or fifty tons. These are navigated by the Liberian sailors, and are constantly engaged in bringing palm-oil to Monrovia, from whence it is again shipped in foreign vessels for Liverpool or New York. I made inquiry, during a short sojourn at this place in 1852 on my way to this country, about the amount of property owned by the wealthiest merchants of Monrovia, and learned that there were four or five who were worth from fifteen thousand to twenty thousand dollars, a large number who owned property to the amount of ten thousand dollars, and perhaps twelve or fifteen who were worth as much as five thousand dollars. The property of some of these may have increased materiallv since that time.

"The settlers along the banks of the St. Paul have given more attention to the cultivation of the soil. They raise sweet-potatoes, cassava, and plantains, for their own use, and also supply the Monrovia market with the same. Ground-nuts and arrow-root are also cultivated, but to a very limited extent. A few individuals have cultivated the sugar cane with success, and have manufactured a considerable quantity of excellent sugar and molasses. Some attention has been given to the cultivation of the coffee tree. It grows luxuriantly, and bears most abundantly. The flavor of the coffee is as fine as any in the world; and, if the Liberians would give the attention to it they ought, it would probably be as highly esteemed as any other in the world. It is easily cultivated, and requires little or no outlay of capital; and we are surprised that it has not already become an article of export. The want of disposition to cultivate the soil is, perhaps, the most discouraging feature in the prospects of Liberia. Mercantile pursuits are followed with zeal and energy, but comparatively few are willing to till the ground for the means of subsistence."

Liberia had its first constitution in 1825. It was drawn at the instance of the Colonization Society in the United States. It set forth the objects of the colony, defined citizenship, and declared the objects of the government. It remained in force until 1836. In 1839 a "Legislative Council" was created, and the constitution amended to meet the growing wants of the government. In 1847 Liberia declared herself an independent republic. The first article of the constitution of 1847 reads as follows:—

"ARTICLE I. SECTION I. All men are born equally free and independent, and among them natural, inherent and inalienable rights, are the rights of enjoying and defending life and LIBERTY."

This section meant a great deal to a people who had abandoned their homes in the United States, where a chief justice of the Supreme Court had declared that "a Negro has no rights which a white man is bound to respect,"—a country where the Federal Congress had armed every United-States marshal in all the Northern States with the inhuman and arbitrary power to apprehend, load with chains, and hurl back into the hell of slavery, every poor fugitive who sought to find a home in a professedly free section of "the land of the free and the home of the brave." These brave black pilgrims, who had to leave "the freest land in the world" in order to get their freedom, did not intend that the solemn and formal declaration of principles contained in their constitution should be reduced to a reductio ad absurdum, as those in the American Constitution were by the infamous Fugitive-slave Law. And in section 4 of their constitution they prohibit "the sum of all villanies"—slavery! The article reads:—

"There shall be no slavery within this republic. Nor shall any citizen of this republic, or any person resident therein, deal in slaves, either within or without this republic."

They had no measure of compromise by which slavery could be carried on beyond certain limits "for highly commercial and business interests of a portion of their fellow-citizens." Liberians might have grown rich by merely suffering the slave-trade to be carried on among the natives. The constitution fixed a scale of revenue, and levied a tariff on all imported articles. A customs-service was introduced, and many reforms enforced which greatly angered a few avaricious white men whose profession as men-stealers was abolished by the constitution. Moreover, there were others who for years had been trading and doing business along the coast, without paying any duties on the articles they exported. The new government incurred their hostility.

In April, 1850, the republic of Liberia entered into a treaty with England, and in article nine of said treaty bound herself to the suppression of the slave-trade in the following explicit language:—

"Slavery and the slave-trade being perpetually abolished in the republic of Liberia, the republic engages that a law shall be passed declaring it to be piracy for any Liberian citizen or vessel to be engaged or concerned in the slave-trade."

Notwithstanding the above treaty, the enemies of the republic circulated the report in England and America that the Liberian government was secretly engaged in the slave-trade. The friends of colonization in both countries were greatly alarmed by the rumor, and sought information in official quarters,—of men on the ground. The following testimony will show that the charge was malicious:—

"Capt. Arabian, R.N., in one of his despatches says, 'Nothing had been done more to suppress the slave-trade in this quarter than the constant intercourse of the natives with these industrious colonists;' and again, 'Their character is exceedingly correct and moral, their minds strongly impressed with religious feeling, and their domestic habits remarkably neat and comfortable.' 'wherever the influence of Liberia extends, the slave trade has been abandoned by the natives.'

"Lieut. Stott, R.N., in a letter to Dr. Hodgkin, dated July, 1840, says, it (Liberia) promises to be the only successful institution on the coast of Africa, keeping in mind its objects; viz., 'that of raising the African slave into a free man, the extinction of the slave-trade, and the religious and moral improvement of Africa;' and adds, 'The surrounding Africans are aware of the nature of the colony, taking refuge when persecuted by the few neighboring slave-traders. The remnant of a tribe has lately fled to and settled in the colony on land granted them. Between my two visits, a lapse of only a few days, four or five slaves sought refuge from their master, who was about to sell, or had sold, them to the only slave-factory on the coast. The native chiefs in the neighborhood have that respect for the colonists that they have made treaties for the abolition of the slave trade.'

"Capt. Irving, R.N., in a letter to Dr. Hodgkin, Aug 3, 1840, observes, 'You ask me if they aid in the slave-trade? I assure you, no! and I am sure the colonists would feel themselves much hurt should they know such a question could possibly arise in England. In my opinion it is the best and safest plan for the extinction of the slave-trade, and the civilization of Africa, for it is a well-known fact, that wherever their flag flies it is an eye-sore to the slave-dealers.'

"Capt. Herbert, R.N.: 'With regard to the present state of slave-taking in the colony of Liberia, I have never known one instance of a slave being owned or disposed of by a colonist. On the contrary, I have known them to render great facility to our cruisers in taking vessels engaged in that nefarious traffic.'

"Capt. Dunlop, who had abundant opportunities for becoming acquainted with Liberia during the years 1848-50, says, 'I am perfectly satisfied no such thing as domestic slavery exists in any shape amongst the citizens of the republic.'

"Commodore Sir Charles Hotham, commander-in-chief of her British Majesty's squadron on the western coast of Africa, in a letter to the Secretary of the Admiralty, dated April 7, 1847, and published in the Parliamentary Returns, says, 'On perusing the correspondence of my predecessors, I found a great difference of opinion existing as to the views and objects of the settlers; some even accusing the governor of lending himself to the slave-trade. After discussing the whole subject with officers and others best qualified to judge on the matter, I not only satisfied my own mind that there is no reasonable cause for such a suspicion, but further, that this establishment merits all the support we can give it, for it is only through their means that we can hope to improve the African race.' Subsequently, in 1849, the same officer gave his testimony before the House of Lords, in the following language: 'There is no necessity for the squadron watching the coast between Sierra Leone and Cape Palmas, as the liberian territory intervenes, and there the slave-trade has been extinguished.'"[113]

The government was firmly and wisely administered, and its friends everywhere found occasion for great pleasure in its marked success. While the government had more than a quarter of a million of natives under its care, the greatest caution was exercised in dealing with them legally. The system was not so complicated as our Indian system, but the duties of the officers in dealing with the uncivilized tribes were as delicate as those of an Indian agent in the United States.

"The history of a single case will illustrate the manner in which Liberia exerts her influence in preventing the native tribes from warring upon each other. The territory of Little Cape Mount, Grand Cape Mount, and Gallinas was purchased, three or four years since, and added to the Republic. The chiefs, by the term of sale, transferred the rights of sovereignty and of soil to Liberia, and bound themselves to obey her laws. The government of Great Britain had granted to Messrs. Hyde, Hodge, & Co., of London, a contract for the supply of laborers from the coast of Africa to the planters of her West India colonies. This grant was made under the rule for the substitution of apprentices, to supply the lack of labor produced by the emancipation of the slaves. The agents of Messrs. Hyde, Hodge, & Co. visited Grand Cape Mount, and made an offer of ten dollars per head to the chiefs for each person they could supply as emigrants for this object. The offer excited the cupidity of some of the chiefs; and to procure the emigrants and secure the bounty one of them, named Boombo, of Little Cape Mount, resorted to war upon several of the surrounding tribes. He laid waste the country, burned the towns and villages, captured and murdered many of the inhabitants, carried off hundreds of others, and robbed several factories in that legion belonging to merchants in Liberia. On the 26th of February, 1853, President Roberts issued his proclamation enjoining a strict observance of the law regulating passports, and forbidding the sailing of any vessel with emigrants without first visiting the port of Monrovia, where each passenger should be examined as to his wishes. On the 1st of March the president, with two hundred men, sailed for Little Cape Mount, arrested Boombo and fifty of his followers, summoned a council of the other chiefs at Monrovia for his trial on the 14th, and returned home with his prisoners. At the time appointed, the trial was held, Boombo was found guilty of 'high misdemeanor' and sentenced 'to make restitution, restoration, and reparation of goods stolen, people captured, and damages committed: to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned for two years.' When the sentence was pronounced, the convict shed tears, regarding the ingredient of imprisonment in his sentence to be almost intolerable. These rigorous measures, adopted to maintain the authority of the government and majesty of the laws, have had a salutary influence upon the chiefs. No outbreaks have since occurred, and but little apprehension of danger for the future is entertained."[114]

The republic did a vast amount of good before the Great Rebellion in the United States, but since emancipation its population has been fed by the natives who have been educated and converted to Christianity. Professor David Christy, the great colonizationist, said in a lecture delivered in 1855,—

"If, then, a colony of colored men, beginning with less than a hundred, and gradually increasing to nine thousand, has in thirty years established an independent republic amidst a savage people, destroyed the slave-trade on six hundred miles of the African coast, put down the heathen temples in one of its largest counties, afforded security to all the missions within its limits, and now casts its shield over three hundred thousand native inhabitants, what may not be done in the next thirty years by colonization and missions combined, were sufficient means supplied to call forth all their energies?"

The circumstances that led to the founding of the Negro Republic in the wilds of Africa perished in the fires of civil war. The Negro is free everywhere; but the republic of Liberia stands, and should stand until its light shall have penetrated the gloom of Africa, and until the heathen shall gather to the brightness of its shining. May it stand through the ages as a Christian Republic, as a faithful light-house along the dark and trackless sea of African paganism!

FOOTNOTES:

[106] Ethiope, p. 197.

[107] Foreign Travel and Life at Sea, vol. ii. p. 359.

[108] Bishop Scott's Letter in the Colonization Herald, October, 1853.

[109] In Methodist Missionary Advocate, 1853.

[110] Gammell's History of the American Baptist Missions, pp. 248, 249.

[111] Edward W. Blyden, L.L.D., president of Liberia College, a West Indian, is a scholar of marvellous erudition, a writer of rare abilities, a subtle reasoner, a preacher of charming graces, and one of the foremost Negroes of the world. He is himself the best argument in favor of the Negro's capacity for Christian civilization. He ranks amongst the world's greatest linguists.

[112] Report of Bishop Payne, June 6, 1853.

[113] Colonization Herald, December, 1852.

[114] Ethiope, pp. 207, 208.



CHAPTER XI.

RESUME.

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN FAMILY RE-AFFIRMED.—GOD GAVE ALL RACES OF MEN CIVILIZATION.—THE ANTIQUITY OF THE NEGRO BEYOND DISPUTE.—IDOLATRY THE CAUSE OF THE DEGRADATION OF THE AMERICAN RACES.—HE HAS ALWAYS HAD A PLACE IN HISTORY, THOUGH INCIDENTAL.—NEGRO TYPE CAUSED BY DEGRADATION.—NEGRO EMPIRES AN EVIDENCE OF CRUDE ABILITY FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT.—INFLUENCE OF THE TWO CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENTS ON THE WEST COAST UPON THE HEATHEN.—ORATION ON EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA.—THE DUTY OF CHRISTIANITY TO EVANGELIZE AFRICA.

The preceding ten chapters are introductory in their nature. We felt that they were necessary to a history of the Colored race in the United States. We desired to explain and explode two erroneous ideas,—the curse of Canaan, and the theory that the Negro is a distinct species,—that were educated into our white countrymen during the long and starless night of the bondage of the Negro. It must appear patent to every honest student of God's word, that the slavery interpretation of the curse of Canaan is without warrant of Scripture, and at war with the broad and catholic teachings of the New Testament. It is a sad commentary on American civilization to find even a few men like Helper, "Ariel," and the author of "The Adamic Race" still croaking about the inferiority of the Negro; but it is highly gratifying to know that they no longer find an audience or readers, not even in the South. A man never hates his neighbors until he has injured them. Then, in justification of his unjustifiable conduct, he uses slander for argument.

During the late war thousands of mouths filled with vituperative wrath against the colored race were silenced as in the presence of the heroic deeds of "the despised race," and since the war the obloquy of the Negro's enemies has been turned into the most fulsome praise.

We stand in line and are in harmony with history and historians —modern and ancient, sacred and profane—on the subject of the unity of the human family. There are, however, a few who differ; but their wild, incoherent, and unscholarly theories deserve the mercy of our silence.

It is our firm conviction, and it is not wholly unsupported by history, that the Creator gave all the nations arts and sciences. Where nations have turned aside to idolatry they have lost their civilization. The Canaanites, Jebusites, Hivites, etc., the idolatrous[115] nations inhabiting the land of Canaan, were the descendants of Canaan; and the only charge the Lord brought against them when he commanded Joshua to exterminate them was, that they were his enemies[116] in all that that term implies. The sacred record tells us that they were a warlike, powerful people,[117] living in walled cities, given to agriculture, and possessing quite a respectable civilization; but they were idolaters—God's enemies.

It is worthy of emphasis, that the antiquity of the Negro race is beyond dispute. This is a fact established by the most immutable historical data, and recorded on the monumental brass and marble of the Oriental nations of the most remote period of time. The importance and worth of the Negro have given him a place in all the histories of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. His position, it is true, in all history up to the present day, has been accidental, incidental, and collateral; but it is sufficient to show how he has been regarded in the past by other nations. His brightest days were when history was an infant; and, since he early turned from God, he has found the cold face of hate and the hurtful hand of the Caucasian against him. The Negro type is the result of degradation. It is nothing more than the lowest strata of the African race. Pouring over the venerable mountain terraces, an abundant stream from an abundant and unknown source, into the malarial districts, the genuine African has gradually degenerated into the typical Negro. His blood infected with the poison of his low habitation, his body shrivelled by disease, his intellect veiled in pagan superstitions, the noblest yearnings of his soul strangled at birth by the savage passions of a nature abandoned to sensuality,—the poor Negro of Africa deserves more our pity than our contempt.

It is true that the weaker tribes, or many of the Negroid type, were the chief source of supply for the slave-market in this country for many years; but slavery in the United States—a severe ordeal through which to pass to citizenship and civilization—had the effect of calling into life many a slumbering and dying attribute in the Negro nature. The cruel institution drove him from an extreme idolatry to an extreme religious exercise of his faith in worship. And now that he is an American citizen,—the condition and circumstances which rendered his piety appropriate abolished,—he is likely to move over to an extreme rationalism.

The Negro empires to which we have called attention are an argument against the theory that he is without government, and his career as a soldier[118] would not disgrace the uniform of an American soldier. Brave, swift in execution, terrible in the onslaught, tireless in energy, obedient to superiors, and clannish to a fault,—the abilities of these black soldiers are worthy of a good cause.

On the edge of the Dark Continent, Sierra Leone and Liberia have sprung up as light-houses on a dark and stormy ocean of lost humanity. Hundreds of thousands of degraded Negroes have been snatched from the vile swamps, and Christianity has been received and appreciated by them. These two Negro settlements have solved two problems; viz., the Negro's ability to administer a government, and the capacity of the native for the reception of education and Christian civilization. San Domingo and Jamaica have their lessons too, but it is not our purpose to write the history of the Colored people of the world. The task may be undertaken some time in the future, however.

It must be apparent to the interested friends of languishing Africa, that there are yet two more problems presented for our solution; and they are certainly difficult of solution. First, we must solve the problem of African geography; second, we must redeem by the power of the gospel, with all its attending blessings, the savage tribes of Africans who have never heard the beautiful song of the angels: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men." That this work will be done we do not doubt. We have great faith in the outcome of the missionary work going on now in Africa; and we are especially encouraged by the wide and kindly interest awakened on behalf of Africa by the noble life-work of Dr. David Livingstone, and the thrilling narrative of Mr. Henry M. Stanley.

It is rather remarkable now, in the light of recent events, that we should have chosen a topic at the close of both our academic and theological course that we can see now was in line with this work so near our heart. The first oration was on "The Footsteps of the Nation," the second was "Early Christianity in Africa." Dr. Livingstone had just fallen a martyr to the cause of geography, and the orators and preachers of enlightened Christendom were busy with the virtues and worth of the dead. It was on the tenth day of June, 1874, that we delivered the last-named oration; and we can, even at this distance, recall the magnificent audience that greeted it, and the feeling with which we delivered it. We were the first Colored man who had ever taken a diploma from that venerable and world-famed institution (Newton Seminary, Newton Centre, Mass.), and therefore there was much interest taken in our graduation. We were ordained on the following evening at Watertown, Mass.; and the original poem written for the occasion by our pastor, the Rev. Granville S. Abbott, D.D., contained the following significant verses:—

"Ethiopia's hands long stretching, Mightily have plead with God; Plead not vainly: time is fetching Answers, as her faith's reward. God is faithful, Yea, and Amen is his word.

Countless prayers, so long ascending, Have their answer here and now; Threads of purpose, wisely meeting In an ordination vow. Afric brother, To thy mission humbly bow."

The only, and we trust sufficient, apology we have to offer to the reader for mentioning matters personal to the author is, that we are deeply touched in reading the oration, after many years, in the original manuscript, preserved by accident. It is fitting that it should be produced here as bearing upon the subject in hand.

EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA.

ORATION BY GEORGE W. WILLIAMS,

ON THE OCCASION OF HIS GRADUATION FROM NEWTON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEWTON CENTRE, MASS., JUNE 10, 1874.

Africa was one of the first countries to receive Christianity. Simon, a Cyrenian, from Africa, bore the cross of Jesus for him to Calvary. There was more in that singular incident than we are apt to recognize, for the time soon came when Africa did indeed take up the Saviour's cross.

The African, in his gushing love, welcomed the new religion to his country and to his heart. He was willing to share its persecutions, and endure shame for the cross of Christ.

Africa became the arena in which theological gladiators met in dubious strife. It was the scene of some of the severest doctrinal controversies of the early Church. Here men and women, devoted to an idea, stood immovable, indomitable as the pyramids, against the severest persecution. Her sons swelled the noble army of martyrs and confessors. The eloquence of their shed blood has been heard through the centuries, and pleads the cause of the benighted to-day.

It was Africa that gave the Christian Church Athanasius and Origen, Cyprian, Tertullian, and Augustine, her greatest writers and teachers. Athanasius, the missionary of monachism to the West, was the indefatigable enemy of Arianism, the bold leader of the Catholic party at Alexandria, at the early age of thirty (30) elevated to its bishopric, one of the most important sees in the East. Ever conscientious and bold, the whole Christian Church felt his influence, while emperors and kings feared his power. His life was stormy, because he loved the truth and taught it in all boldness. He hated his own life for the truth's sake. He counted all things but loss, that he might gain Christ. He was often in perils by false brethren, was driven out into the solitary places of the earth,—into the monasteries of the Thebaid; and yet he endured as seeing Him who is invisible, looking for the reward of the promise, knowing that He who promised is faithful.

Origen was an Alexandrian by birth and culture, an able preacher, a forcible writer, and a theologian of great learning. His influence while living was great, and was felt long after his death.

In North Africa, Cyprian, the great writer of Church polity, a pastor and teacher of rare gifts, was the first bishop to lay down his life for the truth's sake. The shadows of fifteen centuries rest upon his name; but it is as fadeless to-day as when a weeping multitude followed him to his martyrdom, and exclaimed, "Let us die with our holy bishop."

The weary centuries intervene, and yet the student of Church polity is fascinated and instructed by the brilliant teachings of Cyprian. His bitterest enemies—those who have most acrimoniously assailed him—have at length recognized in him the qualities of a great writer and teacher; and his puissant name, sending its influence along the ages, attracts the admiration of the ecclesiastical scholars of every generation.

Tertullian, the leader of the Montanists, fiery, impulsive, the strong preacher, the vigorous writer, the bold controversialist, organized a sect which survived him, though finally disorganized through the influence of Augustine, the master theologian of the early Church, indeed of the Church universal.

Other fathers built theological systems that flourished for a season; but the system that Augustine established survived him, has survived the intervening centuries, and lives to-day.

Africa furnished the first dissenters from an established church,—the Donatists. They were the Separatists and Puritans of the early Church.

Their struggle was long, severe, but useless. They were condemned, not convinced; discomfited, not subdued; and the patient, suffering, indomitable spirit they evinced shows what power there is in a little truth held in faith.

Christianity had reached its zenith in Africa. It was her proudest hour. Paganism had been met and conquered. The Church had passed through a baptism of blood, and was now wholly consecrated to the cause of its Great Head. Here Christianity flowered, here it brought forth rich fruit in the lives of its tenacious adherents. Here the acorn had become the sturdy oak, under which the soldiers of the cross pitched their tents. The African Church had triumphed gloriously.

But, in the moment of signal victory, the Saracens poured into North Africa, and Mohammedanism was established upon the ruins of Christianity.

The religion of Christ was swept from its moorings, the saint was transformed into the child of the desert, and quiet settlements became bloody fields where brother shed brother's blood.

Glorious and sublime as was the triumph of Christianity in North Africa, we must not forget that only a narrow belt of that vast country, on the Mediterranean, was reached by Christianity. Its western and southern portions are yet almost wholly unknown. Her vast deserts, her mighty rivers, and her dusky children are yet beyond the reach of civilization; and her forests have been the grave of many who would explore her interior. To-day England stands by the new-made grave of the indomitable Livingstone,—her courageous son, who, as a missionary and geographer spent his best days and laid down his life in the midst of Africa.

For nearly three centuries Africa has been robbed of her sable sons. For nearly three centuries they have toiled in bondage, unrequited, in this youthful republic of the West. They have grown from a small company to be an exceedingly great people,—five millions in number. No longer chattels, they are human beings, no longer bondmen, they are freemen, with almost every civil disability removed.

Their weary feet now press up the mount of science. Their darkened intellect now sweeps, unfettered, through the realms of learning and culture. With his Saxon brother, the African slakes his insatiable thirstings for knowledge at the same fountain. In the Bible, he leads not only the one unalterable text, "Servants, obey your masters," but also, "Ye are all brethren." "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." "He is no respecter of persons."

The Negro in this country has begun to enjoy the blessings of a free citizenship. Under the sunny sky of a Christian civilization he hears the clarion voices of progress about him, urging him onward and upward. From across the ocean, out of the jungles of Africa, come the voices of the benighted and perishing. Every breeze is freighted with a Macedonian call, "Ye men of the African race, come over and help us!"

"Shall we, whose souls are lighted By wisdom from on high,— Shall we, to men benighted The lamp of life deny?"

God often permits evil on the ground of man's free agency, but he does not commit evil.

The Negro of this country can turn to his Saxon brothers and say, as Joseph said to his brethren who wickedly sold him, "As for you, ye meant it unto evil but God meant it unto good; that we, after learning your arts and sciences, might return to Egypt and deliver the rest of our brethren who are yet in the house of bondage."

That day will come! Her chains will be severed by the sword of civilization and liberty. Science will penetrate her densest forests, and climb her loftiest mountains, and discover her richest treasures. The Sun of righteousness, and the star of peace shall break upon her sin-clouded vision, and smile upon her renewed households The anthem of the Redeemer's advent shall float through her forests, and be echoed by her mountains. Those dusky children of the desert, who now wander and plunder, will settle to quiet occupations of industry. Gathering themselves into villages, plying the labors of handicraft and agriculture, they will become a well disciplined society, instead of being a roving, barbarous horde.

The sabbath bells will summon from scattered cottages smiling populations, linked together by friendship, and happy in all the sweetness of domestic charities. Thus the glory of her latter day shall be greater than at the beginning, and Ethiopia shall stretch forth her hands unto God.

It is our earnest desire and prayer, that the friends of missions in all places where God in his providence may send this history will give the subject of the civilization and Christianization of Africa prayerful consideration. The best schools the world can afford should be founded on the West Coast of Africa The native should be educated at home, and mission stations should be planted under the very shadow of the idol-houses of the heathen. The best talent and abundant means have been sent to Siam, China, and Japan. Why not send the best talent and needful means to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Cape Palmas, that native missionaries may be trained for the outposts of the Lord? There is not a more promising mission-field in the world than Africa, and yet our friends in America take so little interest in this work! The Lord is going to save that Dark Continent, and it behooves his servants here to honor themselves in doing something to hasten the completion of this inevitable work! Africa is to be redeemed by the African, and the white Christians of this country can aid the work by munificent contributions. Will you do it, brethren? God help you!

FOOTNOTES:

[115] Deut. xii. 2, 3, also 30th verse.

[116] Deut. vi. 19.

[117] Deut. vii. 7.

[118] News comes to us from Egypt that Arabi Pacha's best artillerists are Negro soldiers.



Part II.

SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.[119]



CHAPTER XII.

THE COLONY OF VIRGINIA.

1619-1775.

INTRODUCTION OF THE FIRST SLAVES.—"THE TREASURER" AND THE DUTCH MAN-OF-WAR.—THE CORRECT DATE.—THE NUMBER OF SLAVES.—WERE THERE TWENTY, OR FOURTEEN?—LITIGATION ABOUT THE POSSESSION OF THE SLAVES.—CHARACTER OF THE SLAVES IMPORTED, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE COLONISTS.—RACE PREJUDICES.—LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT OF SLAVERY. WHO ARE SLAVES FOR LIFE.—DUTIES ON IMPORTED SLAVES.—POLITICAL AND MILITARY PROHIBITIONS AGAINST NEGROES.—PERSONAL RIGHTS.—CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST SLAVES. EMANCIPATION.—HOW BROUGHT ABOUT.—FREE NEGROES.—THEIR RIGHTS.—MORAL AND RELIGIOUS TRAINING.—POPULATION.—SLAVERY FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.

Virginia was the mother of slavery as well as "the mother of Presidents." Unfortunate for her, unfortunate for the other colonies, and thrice unfortunate for the poor Colored people, who from 1619 to 1863 yielded their liberty, their toil,—unrequited,—their bodies and intellects to an institution that ground them to powder. No event in the history of North America has carried with it to its last analysis such terrible forces. It touched the brightest features of social life, and they faded under the contact of its poisonous breath. It affected legislation, local and national; it made and destroyed statesmen; it prostrated and bullied honest public sentiment; it strangled the voice of the press, and awed the pulpit into silent acquiescence; it organized the judiciary of States, and wrote decisions for judges; it gave States their political being, and afterwards dragged them by the fore-hair through the stormy sea of civil war; laid the parricidal fingers of Treason against the fair throat of Liberty,—and through all time to come no event will be more sincerely deplored than the introduction of slavery into the colony of Virginia during the last days of the month of August in the year 1619!

The majority of writers on American history, as well as most histories on Virginia, from Beverley to Howison, have made a mistake in fixing the date of the introduction of the first slaves. Mr. Beverley, whose history of Virginia was printed in London in 1772, is responsible for the error, in that nearly all subsequent writers—excepting the laborious and scholarly Bancroft and the erudite Campbell—have repeated his mistake. Mr. Beverley, speaking of the burgesses having "met the Governor and Council at James Town in May 1620," adds in a subsequent paragraph, "In August following a Dutch Man of War landed twenty Negroes for sale; which were the first of that kind that were carried into the country."[120] By "August following," we infer that Beverley would have his readers understand that this was in 1620. But Burk, Smith, Campbell, and Neill gave 1619 as the date.[121] But we are persuaded to believe that the first slaves were landed at a still earlier date. In Capt. John Smith's history, printed in London in 1629, is a mere incidental reference to the introduction of slaves into Virginia. He mentions, under date of June 25, that the "governor and councell caused Burgesses to be chosen in all places,"[122] which is one month later than the occurrence of this event as fixed by Beverley. Smith speaks of a vessel named "George" as having been "sent to Newfoundland" for fish, and, having started in May, returned after a voyage of "seven weeks." In the next sentence he says, "About the last of August came in a dutch man of warre that sold us twenty Negars."[123] Might not he have meant "about the end of last August" came the Dutch man-of-war, etc.? All historians, except two, agree that these slaves were landed in August, but disagree as to the year. Capt. Argall, of whom so much complaint was made by the Virginia Company to Lord Delaware,[124] fitted out the ship "Treasurer" at the expense of the Earl of Warwick, who sent him "an olde commission of hostility from the Duke of Savoy against the Spanyards," for a "filibustering" cruise to the West Indies.[125] And, "after several acts of hostility committed, and some purchase gotten, she returns to Virginia at the end of ten months or thereabouts."[126] It was in the early autumn of 1618,[127] that Capt. Edward (a son of William) Brewster was sent into banishment by Capt. Argall; and this, we think, was one of the last, if not the last official act of that arbitrary governor. It was certainly before this that the ship "Treasurer," manned "with the ablest men in the colony," sailed for "the Spanish dominions in the Western hemisphere." Under date of June 15, 1618, John Rolfe, speaking of the death of the Indian Powhatan, which took place in April, says, "Some private differences happened betwixt Capt. Bruster and Capt. Argall," etc.[128] Capt. John Smith's information, as secured from Master Rolfe, would lead to the conclusion that the difficulty which took place between Capt. Edward Brewster and Capt. Argall occurred in the spring instead of the autumn, as Neill says. If it be true that "The Treasurer" sailed in the early spring of 1618, Rolfe's statement as to the time of the strife between Brewster and Argall would harmonize with the facts in reference to the length of time the vessel was absent as recorded in Burk's history. But if Neill is correct as to the time of the quarrel,—for we maintain that it was about this time that Argall left the colony,—then his statement would tally with Burk's account of the time the vessel was on the cruise. If, therefore, she sailed in October, 1618, being absent ten months, she was due at Jamestown in August, 1619.

But, nevertheless, we are strangely moved to believe that 1618 was the memorable year of the landing of the first slaves in Virginia. And we have one strong and reliable authority on our side. Stith, in his history of Virginia, fixes the date in 1618.[129] On the same page there is an account of the trial and sentence of Capt. Brewster. The ship "Treasurer" had evidently left England in the winter of 1618. When she reached the Virginia colony, she was furnished with a new crew and abundant supplies for her cruise. Neill says she returned with booty and "a certain number of negroes." Campbell agrees that it was some time before the landing of the Dutch man-of-war that "The Treasurer" returned to Virginia. He says, "She returned to Virginia after some ten months with her booty, which consisted of captured negroes, who were not left in Virginia, because Capt. Argall had gone back to England, but were put on the Earl of Warwick's plantation in the Somer Islands."[130]

During the last two and one-half centuries the readers of the history of Virginia have been mislead as to these two vessels, the Dutch man-of-war and "The Treasurer." The Dutch man-of-war did land the first slaves; but the ship "Treasurer" was the first to bring them to this country, in 1618.

When in 1619 the Dutch man-of-war brought the first slaves to Virginia, Capt. Miles Kendall was deputy-governor. The man-of-war claimed to sail under commission of the Prince of Orange. Capt. Kendall gave orders that the vessel should not land in any of his harbors: but the vessel was without provisions; and the Negroes, fourteen in number, were tendered for supplies. Capt. Kendall accepted the slaves, and, in return, furnished the man-of-war with the coveted provisions. In the mean while Capt. Butler came and assumed charge of the affairs of the Virginia Company, and dispossessed Kendall of his slaves, alleging that they were the property of the Earl of Warwick. He insisted that they were taken from the ship "Treasurer,"[131] "with which the said Holland man-of-war had consorted." Chagrined, and wronged by Gov. Butler, Capt. Kendall hastened back to England to lay his case before the London Company, and to seek equity. The Earl of Warwick appeared in court, and claimed the Negroes as his property, as having belonged to his ship, "The Treasurer." Every thing that would embarrass Kendall was introduced by the earl. At length, as a final resort, charges were formally preferred against him, and the matter referred to Butler for decision. Capt. Kendall did not fail to appreciate the gravity of his case, when charges were preferred against him in London, and the trial ordered before the man of whom he asked restitution! The case remained in statu quo until July, 1622, when the court made a disposition of the case. Nine of the slaves were to be delivered to Capt. Kendall, "and the rest to be consigned to the company's use." This decision was reached by the court after the Earl of Warwick had submitted the case to the discretion and judicial impartiality of the judges. The court gave instructions to Capt. Bernard, who was then the governor, to see that its order was enforced. But while the order of the court was in transitu, Bernard died. The earl, learning of the event, immediately wrote a letter, representing that the slaves should not be delivered to Kendall; and an advantage being taken—purely technical—of the omission of the name of the captain of the Holland man-of-war, Capt. Kendall never secured his nine slaves.

It should be noted, that while Rolfe, in Capt. Smith's history, fixes the number of slaves in the Dutch vessel at twenty,—as also does Beverley,—it is rather strange that the Council of Virginia, in 1623, should state that the commanding officer of the Dutch man-of-war told Capt. Kendall that "he had fourteen Negroes on board!"[132] Moreover, it is charged that the slaves taken by "The Treasurer" were divided up among the sailors; and that they, having been cheated out of their dues, asked judicial interference.[133] Now, these slaves from "The Treasurer" "were placed on the Earl of Warwick's lands in Bermudas, and there kept and detained to his Lordship's use." There are several things apparent; viz., that there is a mistake between the statement of the Virginia Council in their declaration of May 7, 1623, about the number of slaves landed by the man-of-war, and the statements of Beverley and Smith. And if Stith is to be relied upon as to the slaves of "The Treasurer" having been taken to the "Earl of Warwick's lands in Bermudas, and there kept," his lordship's claim to the slaves Capt. Kendall got from the Dutch man-of-war was not founded in truth or equity!

Whether the number was fourteen or twenty, it is a fact, beyond historical doubt, that the Colony of Virginia purchased the first Negroes, and thus opened up the nefarious traffic in human flesh. It is due to the Virginia Colony to say, that these slaves were forced upon them; that they were taken in exchange for food given to relieve the hunger of famishing sailors; that white servitude[134] was common, and many whites were convicts[135] from England; and the extraordinary demand for laborers may have deadened the moral sensibilities of the colonists as to the enormity of the great crime to which they were parties. Women were sold for wives,[136] and sometimes were kidnapped[137] in England and sent into the colony. There was nothing in the moral atmosphere of the colony inimical to the spirit of bondage that was manifest so early in the history of this people. England had always held her sceptre over slaves of some character: villeins in the feudal era, stolen Africans under Elizabeth and under the house of the Tudors; Caucasian children—whose German blood could be traced beyond the battle of Hastings—in her mines, factories, and mills; and vanquished Brahmans in her Eastern possessions. How, then, could we expect less of these "knights" and "adventurers" who "degraded the human race by an exclusive respect for the privileged classes"?[138]

The institution of slavery once founded, it is rather remarkable that its growth was so slow. According to the census of Feb. 16, 1624, there were but twenty-two in the entire colony.[139] There were eleven at Flourdieu Hundred, three in James City, one on James Island, one on the plantation opposite James City, four at Warisquoyak, and two at Elizabeth City. In 1648 the population of Virginia was about fifteen thousand, with a slave population of three hundred.[140] The cause of the slow increase of slaves was not due to any colonial prohibition. The men who were engaged in tearing unoffending Africans from their native home were some time learning that this colony was at this time a ready market for their helpless victims. Whatever feeling or scruple, if such ever existed, the colonists had in reference to the subject of dealing in the slave-trade, was destroyed at conception by the golden hopes of large gains. The latitude, the products of the soil, the demand for labor, the custom of the indenture of white servants, were abundant reasons why the Negro should be doomed to bondage for life.

The subjects of slavery were the poor unfortunates that the strong push to the outer edge of organized African society, where, through neglect or abuse, they are consigned to the mercy of avarice and malice. We have already stated that the weaker tribes of Africa are pushed into the alluvial flats of that continent; where they have perished in large numbers, or have become the prey of the more powerful tribes, who consort with slave-hunters. Disease, tribal wars in Africa, and the merciless greed of slave-hunters, peopled the colony of Virginia with a class that was expected to till the soil. African criminals, by an immemorial usage, were sold into slavery as the highest penalty, save death; and often this was preferred to bondage. Many such criminals found their way into the colony. To be bondmen among neighboring tribes at home was dreaded beyond expression; but to wear chains in a foreign land, to submit to the dehumanizing treatment of cruel taskmasters, was an ordeal that fanned into life the last dying ember of manhood and resentment.

The character of the slaves imported, and the pitiable condition of the white servants, produced rather an anomalous result. "Male servants, and slaves of both sex" were bound together by the fellowship of toil. But the distinction "made between them in their clothes and food"[141] drew a line, not between their social condition,—for it was the same,—but between their nationality. First, then, was social estrangement, next legal difference, and last of all political disagreement and strife. In order to oppress the weak, and justify the unchristian distinction between God's creatures, the persons who would bolster themselves into respectability must have the aid of law. Luther could march fearlessly to the Diet of Worms if every tile on the houses were a devil; but Macbeth was conquered by the remembrance of the wrong he had done the virtuous Duncan and the unoffending Banquo, long before he was slain by Macduff. A guilty conscience always needs a multitude of subterfuges to guard against dreaded contingencies. So when the society in the Virginia Colony had made up its mind that the Negroes in their midst were mere heathen,[142] they stood ready to punish any member who had the temerity to cross the line drawn between the races. It was not a mitigating circumstance that the white servants of the colony who came into natural contact with the Negroes were "disorderly persons," or convicts sent to Virginia by an order of the king of England. It was fixed by public sentiment and law that there should be no relation between the races. The first prohibition was made "September 17th, 1630." Hugh Davis, a white servant, was publicly flogged "before an assembly of Negroes and others," for defiling himself with a Negro. It was also required that he should confess as much on the following sabbath.[143]

In the winter of 1639, on the 6th of January, during the incumbency of Sir Francis Wyatt, the General Assembly passed the first prohibition against Negroes. "All persons," doubtless including fraternizing Indians, "except Negroes," were required to secure arms and ammunition, or be subject to a fine, to be imposed by "the Governor and Council."[144] The records are too scanty, and it is impossible to judge, at this remote day, what was the real cause of this law. We have already called attention to the fact that the slaves were but a mere fraction of the summa summarum of the population. It could not be that the brave Virginians were afraid of an insurrection! Was it another reminder that the "Negroes were heathen," and, therefore, not entitled to the privileges of Christian freemen? It was not the act of that government, which in its conscious rectitude "can put ten thousand to flight," but was rather the inexcusable feebleness of a diseased conscience, that staggers off for refuge "when no man pursueth."

Mr. Bancroft thinks that the "special tax upon female slaves"[145] was intended to discourage the traffic. It does not so seem to us. It seems that the Virginia Assembly was endeavoring to establish friendly relations with the Dutch and other nations in order to secure "trade." Tobacco was the chief commodity of the colonists. They intended by the act[146] of March, 1659, to guarantee the most perfect liberty "to trade with" them. They required, however, that foreigners should "give bond and pay the impost of tenn shillings per hogshead laid upon all tobacco exported to any fforreigne dominions." The same act recites, that whenever any slaves were sold for tobacco, the amount of imposts would only be "two shillings per hogshead," which was only the nominal sum paid by the colonists themselves. This act was passed several years before the one became a law that is cited by Mr. Bancroft. It seems that much trouble had been experienced in determining who were taxable in the colony. It is very clear that the LIV. Act of March, 1662, which Mr. Bancroft thinks was intended to discourage the importation of slaves by taxing female slaves, seeks only to determine who shall be taxable. It is a general law, declaring "that all male persons, of what age soever imported into this country shall be brought into lysts and be liable to the payment of all taxes, and all negroes, male and female being imported shall be accompted tythable, and all Indian servants male or female however procured being adjudged sixteen years of age shall be likewise tythable from which none shall be exempted."[147] Beverley says that "the male servants, and slaves of both sexes," were employed together. It seems that white women were so scarce as to be greatly respected. But female Negroes and Indians were taxable; although Indian children, unlike those of Negroes, were not held as slaves.[148] Under the LIV. Act there is but one class exempted from tax,—white females, and, we might add, persons under sixteen years of age.[149] So what Mr. Bancroft mistakes as repressive legislation against the slave-trade is only an exemption of white women, and intended to encourage their coming into the colony.

The legal distinction between slaves and servants was, "slaves for life, and servants for a time."[150] Slavery existed from 1619 until 1662, without any sanction in law. On the 14th of December, 1662, the foundations of the slave institution were laid in the old law maxim, "Partus sequitur ventrum,"—that the issue of slave mothers should follow their condition.[151] Two things were accomplished by this act; viz., slavery received the direct sanction of statutory law, and it was also made hereditary. On the 6th of March, 1655,—seven years before the time mentioned above,—an act was passed declaring that all Indian children brought into the colony by friendly Indians should not be treated as slaves,[152] but be instructed in the trades.[153] By implication, then, slavery existed legally at this time; but the act of 1662 was the first direct law on the subject. In 1670 a question arose as to whether Indians taken in war were to be servants for a term of years, or for life. The act passed on the subject is rather remarkable for the language in which it is couched; showing, as it does, that it was made to relieve the Indian, and fix the term of the Negro's bondage beyond a reasonable doubt. "It is resolved and enacted that all servants not being Christians imported into this colony by shipping shall be slaves for their lives; but what shall come by land shall serve, if boyes or girles, until thirty yeares of age, if men or women twelve yeares and no longer."[154] This remarkable act was dictated by fear and policy. No doubt the Indian was as thoroughly despised as the Negro; but the Indian was on his native soil, and, therefore, was a more dangerous[155] subject. Instructed by the past, and fearful of the future, the sagacious colonists declared by this act, that those who "shall come by land" should not be assigned to servitude for life. While this act was passed to define the legal status of the Indian, at the same time, and with equal force, it determines the fate of the Negro who is so unfortunate as to find his way into the colony. "All servants not being Christians imported into this colony by shipping shall be slaves for their lives." Thus, in 1670, Virginia, not abhorring the institution, solemnly declared that "all servants not christians"—heathen Negroes—coming into her "colony by shipping"—there was no other way for them to come!—should "be slaves for their lives!"

In 1682 the colony was in a flourishing condition. Opulence generally makes men tyrannical, and great success in business makes them unmerciful. Although Indians, in special acts, had not been classed as slaves, but only accounted "servants for a term of years," the growing wealth and increasing number of the colonists seemed to justify them in throwing off the mask. The act of the 3d of October, 1670, defining who should be slaves, was repealed at the November session of the General Assembly of 1682. Indians were now made slaves,[156] and placed upon the same legal footing with the Negroes. The sacred rite of baptism[157] did not alter the condition of children—Indian or Negro—when born in slavery. And slavery, as a cruel and inhuman institution, flourished and magnified with each returning year.

Encouraged by friendly legislation, the Dutch plied the slave-trade with a zeal equalled only by the enormous gains they reaped from the planters. It was not enough that faith had been broken with friendly Indians, and their children doomed by statute to the hell of perpetual slavery; it was not sufficient that the Indian and Negro were compelled to serve, unrequited, for their lifetime. On the 4th of October, 1705, "an act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves, within this dominion, to be real estate,"[158] was passed without a dissenting voice. Before this time they had been denominated by the courts as chattels: now they were to pass in law as real estate. There were, however, several provisos to this act. Merchants coming into the colony with slaves, not sold, were not to be affected by the act until the slaves had actually passed in a bona-fide sale. Until such time their slaves were contemplated by the law as chattels. In case a master died without lawful heirs, his slaves did not escheat, but were regarded as other personal estate or property. Slave property was liable to be taken in execution for the payment of debts, and was recoverable by a personal action.[159]

The only apology for enslaving the Negroes we can find in all the records of this colony is, that they "were heathen." Every statute, from the first to the last, during the period the colony was under the control of England, carefully mentions that all persons—Indians and Negroes—who "are not Christians" are to be slaves. And their conversion to Christianity afterwards did not release them from their servitude.[160]

The act making Indian, Mulatto, and Negro slaves real property, passed in October, 1705, under the reign of Queen Anne, and by her approved, was "explained" and "amended" in February, 1727, during the reign of King George II. Whether the act received its being out of a desire to prevent fraud, like the "Statutes of Frauds," is beyond finding out. But it was an act that showed that slavery had grown to be so common an institution as not to excite human sympathy. And the attempt to "explain" and "amend" its cruel provisions was but a faint precursor of the evils that followed. Innumerable lawsuits grew out of the act, and the courts and barristers held to conflicting interpretations and constructions. Whether complaints were made to his Majesty, the king, the records do not relate; or whether he was moved by feelings of humanity is quite as difficult to understand. But on the 31st of October, 1751, he issued a proclamation repealing the act declaring slaves real estate.[161] The proclamation abrogated nine other acts, and quite threw the colony into confusion.[162] It is to be hoped that the king was animated by the noblest impulses in repealing one of the most dehumanizing laws that ever disgraced the government of any civilized people. The General Assembly, on the 15th of April, 1752, made an appeal to the king, "humbly" protesting against the proclamation. The law-makers in the colony were inclined to doubt the king's prerogative in this matter. They called the attention of his Majesty to the fact that he had given the "Governor" "full power and authority with the advice and consent of the council" to make needful laws; but they failed to realize fully that his Majesty, in accordance with the proviso contained in the grant of authority made to the governor and council of the colony, was using his veto. They recited the causes which induced them to enact the law, recounted the benefits accruing to his Majesty's subjects from the conversion of human beings into real property,[163] and closed with a touching appeal for the retention of the act complained of, so that slaves "might not at the same time be real estate in some respects, personal in others, and bothe in others!" History does not record that the brusque old king was at all moved by this earnest appeal and convincing argument of the Virginia Assembly.

In 1699 the government buildings at James City were destroyed. The General Assembly, in an attempt to devise means to build a new Capitol, passed an act on the 11th of April of the aforesaid year, fixing a "duty on servants and slaves imported"[164] into the colony. Fifteen shillings was the impost tax levied upon every servant imported, "not born in England or Wales, and twenty shillings for every Negro or other slave" thus imported. The revenue arising from this tax on servants and slaves was to go to the building of a new Capitol. Every slave-vessel was inspected by a customs-officer. The commanding officer of the vessel was required to furnish the names and number of the servants and slaves imported, the place of their birth, and pay the duty imposed upon each before they were permitted to be landed. This act was to be in force for the space of "three years from the publication thereof, and no longer."[165] But, in the summer of 1701, it was continued until the 25th day of December, 1703. The act was passed as a temporary measure to secure revenue with which to build the Capitol.[166] Evidently it was not intended to remain a part of the code of the colony. In 1732 it was revived by an act, the preamble of which leads us to infer that the home government was not friendly to its passage. In short, the act is preceded by a prayer for permission to pass it. Whatever may have been the feeling in England in reference to levying imposts upon servants and slaves, it is certain the colonists were in hearty accord with the spirit and letter of the act. It must be clear to every honest student of history, that there never was, up to this time, an attempt made to cure the growing evils of slavery. When a tax was imposed upon slaves imported, the object in view was the replenishing of the coffers of the colonial government. In 1734 another act was passed taxing imported slaves, because it had "been found very easy to the subjects of this colony, and no ways burthensome to the traders in slaves." The additional reason for continuing the law was, "that a competent revenue" might be raised "for preventing or lessening a poll-tax."[167] And in 1738, this law being "found, by experience, to be an easy expedient for raising a revenue towards the lessening a pooll-tax, always grievous to the people of this colony, and is in no way burthensom to the traders in slaves," it was re-enacted. In every instance, through all these years, the imposition of a tax on slaves imported into the colony had but one end in view,—the raising of revenue. In 1699 the end sought through the taxing of imported slaves was the building of the Capitol; in 1734 it was to lighten the burden of taxes on the subjects in the colony; but, in 1740, the object was to get funds to raise and transport troops in his Majesty's service.[168] The original duty remained; and an additional levy of five per centum was required on each slave imported, over and above the twenty shillings required by previous acts.

In 1742 the tax was continued, because it was "necessary" "to discharge the public debts."[169] And again, in 1745, it was still believed to be necessary "for supporting the public expense."[170] The act, in a legal sense, expired by limitation, but in spirit remained in full force until revived by the acts of 1752-53.[171] In the spring of 1755 the General Assembly increased the tax on imported slaves above the amount previously fixed by law.[172] The duty at this time was ten per centum on each slave sold into the colony. The same law was reiterated in 1757,[173] and, when it had expired by limitation, was revived in 1759, to be in force for "the term of seven years from thence next following."[174]

Encouraged by the large revenue derived from the tax imposed on servants and slaves imported into the colony from foreign parts, the General Assembly stood for the revival of the impost-tax. The act of 1699 required the tax at the hands of "the importer," and from as many persons as engaged in the slave-trade who were subjects of Great Britain, and residents of the colony; but the tax at length became a burden to them. In order to evade the law and escape the tax, they frequently went into Maryland and the Carolinas, and bought slaves, ostensibly for their own private use, but really to sell in the local market. To prevent this, an act was passed imposing a tax of twenty per centum on all such sales;[175] but there was a great outcry made against this act. Twenty per centum of the gross amount on each slave, paid by the person making the purchase, was a burden that planters bore with ill grace. The question of the reduction of the tax to ten per centum was vehemently agitated. The argument offered in favor of the reduction was three-fold; viz., "very burthensom to the fair purchaser," inimical "to the settlement and improvement of the lands" in the colony, and a great hinderance to "the importation of slaves, and thereby lessens the fund arising upon the duties upon slaves."[176] The reduction was made in May, 1760; and, under additional pressure, the additional duty on imported slaves to be "paid by the buyer" was taken off altogether.[177] But in 1766 the duty on imported slaves was revived;[178] and in 1772 an act was passed reviving the "additional duty" on "imported slaves, and was continued in force until the colonies threw off the British yoke in 1775."[179]

In all this epoch, from 1619 down to 1775, there is not a scrap of history to prove that the colony of Virginia ever sought to prohibit in any manner the importation of slaves. That she encouraged the traffic, we have abundant testimony; and that she enriched herself by it, no one can doubt.

During the period of which we have just made mention above, the slaves in this colony had no political or military rights. As early as 1639,[180] the Assembly excused them from owning or carrying arms; and in 1705 they were barred by a special act from holding or exercising "any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, or any place of publick trust or power,"[181] in the colony. If found with a "gun, sword, club, staff, or other weopon,"[182] they were turned over to the constable, who was required to administer "twenty lashes on his or her bare back." There was but one exception made. Where Negro and Indian slaves lived on the border or the colony, frequently harassed by predatory bands of hostile Indians, they could bear arms by first getting written license from their master;[183] but even then they were kept under surveillance by the whites.

Personal rights, we cannot see that the slaves had any. They were not allowed to leave the plantation on which they were held as chattel or real estate, without a written certificate or pass from their master, which was only granted under the most urgent circumstances.[184] If they dared lift a hand against any white man, or "Christian" (?) as they loved to call themselves, they were punished by thirty lashes; and if a slave dared to resist his master while he was correcting him, he could be killed; and the master would be guiltless in the eyes of the law.[185] If a slave remained on another plantation more than four hours, his master was liable to a fine of two hundred pounds of tobacco.[186] And if any white person had any commercial dealings with a slave, he was liable to imprisonment for one month without bail, and compelled to give security in the sum of ten pounds.[187] If a slave had earned and owned a horse and buggy, it was lawful to seize them;[188] and the church-warden was charged with the sale of the articles. Even with the full permission of his master, if a slave were found going about the colony trading any articles for his or master's profit, his master was liable to a fine of ten pounds; which fine went to the church-warden, for the benefit of the poor of the parish in which the slave did the trading.[189]

In all the matters of law, civil and criminal, the slave had no rights. Under an act of 1705, Catholics, Indian and Negro slaves, were denied the right to appear as "witnesses in any cases whatsoever," "not being Christians;"[190] but this was modified somewhat in 1732, when Negroes, Indians, and Mulattoes were admitted as witnesses in the trial of slaves.[191] In criminal causes the slave could be arrested, cast into prison, tried, and condemned, with but one witness against him, and sentenced without a jury. The solemnity and dignity of "trial by jury," of which Englishmen love to boast, was not allowed the criminal slave.[192] And, when a slave was executed, a value was fixed upon him; and the General Assembly was required to make an appropriation covering the value of the slave to indemnify the master.[193] More than five slaves meeting together, "to rebel or make insurrection" was considered "felony;" and they were liable to "suffer death, and be utterly excluded the benefit of clergy;"[194] but, where one slave was guilty of manslaughter in killing another slave, he was allowed the benefit of clergy.[195] In case of burglary by a slave, he was not allowed the benefit of the clergy, except "said breaking, in the case of a freeman, would be burglary."[196] And the only humane feature in the entire code of the colony was an act passed in 1772, providing that no slave should be condemned to suffer "unless four of the judges" before whom he is tried "concur."[197]

The free Negroes of the colony of Virginia were but little removed by law from their unfortunate brothers in bondage. Their freedom was the act of individuals, with but one single exception. In 1710 a few recalcitrant slaves resolved to offer armed resistance to their masters, whose treatment had driven them to the verge of desperation. A slave of Robert Ruffin, of Surry County, entered into the plot, but afterwards revealed it to the masters of the rebellious slaves. As a reward for his services, the General Assembly, on the 9th of October, 1710, gave him his manumission papers, with the added privilege to remain in the colony.[198] For the laws of the colony required "that no negro, mulatto, or indian slaves" should be set free "except for some meritorious services." The governor and council were to decide upon the merits of the services, and then grant a license to the master to set his slave at liberty.[199] If any master presumed to emancipate a slave without a license granted according to the act of 1723, his slave thus emancipated could be taken up by the church-warden for the parish in which the master of the slave resided, and sold "by public outcry." The money accruing from such sale was to be used for the benefit of the parish.[200] But if a slave were emancipated according to law, the General Assembly paid the master so much for him, as in the case of slaves executed by the authorities. But it was seldom that emancipated persons were permitted to remain in the colony. By the act of 1699 they were required to leave the colony within six months after they had secured their liberty, on pain of having to pay a fine of "ten pounds sterling to the church-wardens of the parish;" which money was to be used in transporting the liberated slave out of the country.[201] If slave women came in possession of their freedom, the law sought them out, and required of them to pay taxes;[202] a burden from which their white sisters, and even Indian women, were exempt.

If free Colored persons in the colony ever had the right of franchise, there is certainly no record of it. We infer, however, from the act of 1723, that previous to that time they had exercised the voting privilege. For that act declares "that no free negro shall hereafter have any vote at the election."[203] Perhaps they had had a vote previous to this time; but it is mere conjecture, unsupported by historical proof. Being denied the right of suffrage did not shield them from taxation. All free Negroes, male and female, were compelled to pay taxes.[204] They contributed to the support of the colonial government, and yet they had no voice in the government. They contributed to the building of schoolhouses, but were denied the blessings of education.

Free Negroes were enlisted in the militia service, but were not permitted to bear arms. They had to attend the trainings, but were assigned the most servile duties.[205] They built fortifications, pitched and struck tents, cooked, drove teams, and in some instances were employed as musicians. Where free Negroes were acting as housekeepers, they were allowed to have fire-arms in their possession;[206] and if they lived on frontier plantations, as we have made mention already, they were permitted to use arms under the direction of their employers.