"4. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of the legitimate and bona-fide public debt of that State contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said State to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of—— dollars, in consideration of the said duties so pledged having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United States; and upon the condition, also, that the said State of Texas shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature, or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which she has to any part of New Mexico.

"5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

"6. But Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District, the slave-trade in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

"7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or territory in the Union. And

"8. Resolved, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slave-holding States, but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws."

Senator Bell, of Tennessee, offered a series of resolutions on the same question on the 28th of February, containing nine resolves. As usual, on all propositions respecting slavery, the debate was protracted, earnest, and able. The Clay resolutions attracted most attention. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, said:

"Sir, we are called upon to receive this as a measure of compromise! As a measure in which we of the minority are to receive nothing. A measure of compromise! I look upon it as but a modest mode of taking that, the claim to which has been more boldly asserted by others; and, that I may be understood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns that convey the sentiments of the Senator from Kentucky, I here assert, that never will I take less than the Missouri compromise line extended to the Pacific Ocean, with the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves in the territory below that line; and that, before such territories are admitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the option of the owners. I can never consent to give additional power to a majority to commit further aggressions upon the minority in this Union, and will never consent to any proposition which will have such a tendency, without a full guaranty or counteracting measure is connected with it."

A number of very able speeches were made on the resolutions of Mr. Clay, but the most characteristic one—the one most thoroughly representing the sentiment of the South—was made by John C. Calhoun. He said:

"The Union was in danger. The cause of this danger was the discontent at the South. And what was the cause of this discontent? It was found in the belief which prevailed among them that they could not, consistently with honor and safety, remain in the Union. And what had caused this belief? One of the causes was the long-continued agitation of the slave question at the North, and the many aggressions they had made on the rights of the South. But the primary cause was in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had been destroyed. The first of the series of acts by which this had been done, was the ordinance of 1787, by which the South had been excluded from all the northwestern region. The next was the Missouri compromise, excluding them from all the Louisiana territory north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, except the State of Missouri,—in all 1,238,025 square miles, leaving to the South the southern portion of the original Louisiana territory, with Florida, to which had since been added the territory acquired with Texas,—making in all but 609,023 miles. And now the North was endeavoring to appropriate to herself the territory recently acquired from Mexico, adding 526,078 miles to the territory from which the South was, if possible, to be excluded. Another cause of the destruction of this equilibrium was our system of revenue (the tariff), the duties falling mainly upon the Southern portion of the Union, as being the greatest exporting States, while more than a due proportion of the revenue had been disbursed at the North.

"But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the government was leading to a radical change in its character. It was maintained that the government itself had the right to decide, in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, and to resort to force to maintain the power it claimed. The doctrines of General Jackson's proclamation, subsequently asserted and maintained by Mr. Madison, the leading framer and expounder of the Constitution, were the doctrines which, if carried out, would change the character of the government from a federal republic, as it came from the hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy."

Mr. Calhoun also spoke of the anti-slavery agitation, which, if not arrested, would destroy the Union; and he passed a censure upon Congress for receiving abolition petitions. Had Congress in the beginning adopted the course which he had advocated, which was to refuse to take jurisdiction, by the united voice of all parties, the agitation would have been prevented. He charged the North with false professions of devotion to the Union, and with having violated the Constitution. Acts had been passed in Northern States to set aside and annul the clause of the slavery question, with the avowed purpose of abolishing slavery in the States, which was another violation of the Constitution. And during the fifteen years of this agitation, in not a single instance had the people of the North denounced these agitators. How then could their professions of devotion to the Union be sincere?

Mr. Calhoun disapproved both the plan of Mr. Clay and that of President Taylor, as incapable of saving the Union. He would pass by the former without remark, as Mr. Clay had been replied to by several Senators. The Executive plan could not save the Union, because it could not satisfy the South that it could safely or honorably remain in the Union. It was a modification of the Wilmot proviso, proposing to effect the same object, the exclusion of the South from the new territory. The Executive proviso was more objectionable than the Wilmot. Both inflicted a dangerous wound upon the Constitution, by depriving the Southern States of equal rights as joint partners in these territories; but the former inflicted others equally great. It claimed for the inhabitants the right to legislate for the territories, which belonged to Congress. The assumption of this right was utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, and without example. Under this assumed right, the people of California had formed a constitution and a State government, and appointed Senators and Representatives. If the people as adventurers had conquered the territory and established their independence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested in them. In that case they would have had the right to form a State government, and afterward they might have applied to Congress for admission into the Union. But the United States had conquered and acquired California; therefore, to them belonged the sovereignty and the powers of government over the territory. Michigan was the first case of departure from the uniform rule of acting. Hers, however, was a slight departure from established usage. The ordinance of 1787 secured to her the right of becoming a State when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Congress delayed taking the census. The people became impatient; and after her population had increased to twice that number, they formed a constitution without waiting for the taking of the census; and Congress waived the omission, as there was no doubt of the requisite number of inhabitants. In other cases there had existed territorial governments.

Having shown how the Union could not be saved, he then proceeded to answer the question how it could be saved. There was but one way certain. Justice must be done to the South, by a full and final settlement of all the questions at issue. The North must concede to the South an equal right to the acquired territory, and fulfil the stipulations respecting fugitive slaves; must cease to agitate the slave question, and join in an amendment of the Constitution, restoring to the South the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the government.

Here was a clear statement of the position and feelings of the South respecting slavery. The ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri compromise of 1820 "were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections!" And the anti-slavery agitation, "if not arrested, would destroy the Union!" The sophistry of Calhoun sought a reasonable excuse for the South to dissolve the Union. In a speech of his, written during a spell of sickness, and read by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, he referred to Washington as "the illustrious Southerner." When it was read in the Senate Mr. Cass said:

"Our Washington—the Washington of our whole country—receives in this Senate the epithet of 'Southerner,' as if that great man, whose distinguished characteristic was his attachment to his country, and his whole country, who was so well known, and who, more than any one, deprecated all sectional feeling and all sectional action, loved Georgia better than he loved New Hampshire, because he happened to be born on the southern bank of the Potomac. I repeat, sir, that I heard with great pain that expression from the distinguished Senator from South Carolina."

There was certainly no ground for reasonable complaint on the part of the South. From the convention that framed the Federal Constitution, through all Congressional struggle, and in national politics as well, the South had secured nearly all measures asked for. And the discussion in Congress at this time was intended to divert attention from the real object of the South. Another fugitive-slave law was demanded by the South, and the Northern members voted them the right to hunt slaves upon free soil. The law passed, and was approved on the 18th of September, 1850.

It was difficult to choose between the Democratic and Whig parties by reading the planks in their platforms referring to the subject of slavery. On the 1st of June, 1852, the Democratic Convention, at Baltimore, Maryland, nominated Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, for the Presidency, on the forty-ninth ballot. This plank defined the position of that party on the question of slavery.

"That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of every thing appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

"That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled by the last Congress—the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, can not with fidelity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

"That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

The Whig party, at the same city, in convention assembled, on the 16th of June, 1852, nominated Gen. Winfield Scott, for the Presidency, on the fifty-third ballot. The Whig party declared its position on the slavery question as follows:

"That the series of acts of the Thirty-first Congress—the act known as the fugitive-slave law included—are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States, as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting question which they embrace; and so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them and insist on their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation, to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other, not impairing their present efficiency; and we deprecate all agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace; and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made; and we will maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the Whig party of the Union."

The political contest ended in the autumn in favor of Mr. Pierce. The public journals in many parts of the country thought the end of the "slavery question" had come, and that as the Whigs were determined to "discountenance all efforts to continue or renew" the agitation of the subject, there was no fear of sectional strife.

In his inaugural address, March 4, 1853, President Pierce said:

"I believe that involuntary servitude is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the compromise measures of 1850 are strictly constitutional, and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect. And now, I fervently hope that the question is at rest," etc.

In the month of December, upon the assembling of Congress, the President, in his message to that body, again referred to slavery as "a subject which had been set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people." But on the 15th of December, nine days after the message of the President had been received by Congress, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, submitted to the Senate a bill to organize the territory of Nebraska, which was referred to the Committee on Territories. After some discussion in the committee, it was finally reported back to the Senate by Mr. Douglass, of Illinois, with amendments. The report was elaborate, and raised considerable doubt as to whether the amendments did not repeal the Missouri compromise. A special report was made on the 4th of January, 1854, so amending the bill as to remove all doubt; and, contemplating the opening of all the vast territory secured forever to freedom, startled the nation from the "repose" it had apparently taken from agitation on the slavery question, and opened an interminable controversy.

On the 16th of January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice that he would introduce a bill clearly repealing the Missouri compromise. The first champion of the repeal of the compromise of 1820 was a Northern Senator, Stephen A. Douglass, of Illinois. He hung a massive argument—excelling rather in quantity than in quality—upon the following propositions:

"From these provisions, it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm, and rest upon, the following propositions:

"First.—That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose.

"Second.—That 'all cases involving title to slaves,' and 'questions of personal freedom,' are to be referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Third.—That the provision of the Constitution of the United States in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all 'the original territories,' the same as in the States.

"The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850."

Mr. Douglass said:

"The legal effect of this bill, if passed, was neither to legislate slavery into nor out of these territories, but to leave the people to do as they pleased. And why should any man, North or South, object to this principle? It was by the operation of this principle, and not by any dictation from the Federal government, that slavery had been abolished in half of the twelve States in which it existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution."

On the 3d of February, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to amend by striking out the words, "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and," so that the clause would read: "That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inoperative."

Mr. Chase then proceeded to reply to Mr. Douglass. He called attention to that part of the President's message which referred to the "repose" of the subject of slavery, and then said:

"The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the Chief Magistrate of the country, was complete, and a large majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke. A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the permanency of this repose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question. But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing party in the country. Our number was small in Congress. By some we were regarded as visionaries, by some as factionists; while almost all agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven, not a cloud appeared; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky. But suddenly all is changed; rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. The storm bursts forth in fury. And now we find ourselves in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can foresee.

"Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial slavery into Congress; not we, who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No, sir; the quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery. This will not escape the observation of the country. It is slavery that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It is slavery with its insatiate demand for more slave territory and more slave States. And what does slavery ask for now? Why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded—a compact which has endured through a whole generation—a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, North and South—a compact, the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide."

But notwithstanding the able and eloquent speech of Mr. Chase, his amendment only received thirteen votes. The debate went on until the 3d of March, when the bill was placed upon its passage, and even then the discussion went on. When the vote was finally taken, the bill passed by a vote of 37 yeas to 14 nays. The bill went to the House, where it was made a substitute to a bill already introduced, and passed by a vote of 113 yeas to 100 nays as follows:

"Representatives from free States in favor of the bill, 44. "Representatives from slave States in favor of the bill, 69. —— 113.

"Representatives from free States against the bill, 91. "Representatives from slave States against the bill, 9. —— 100."

And thus, approved by the President, the measure became a law under the title of "An Act to Organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska."

Congress had violated the sublimest principles of law, had broken faith with the people; had opened a wide door to slavery; had blotted from the map of the United States the last asylum where the oppressed might seek protection; had put the country in a way to be reddened with a fratricidal war, and made our flag a flaunting lie in the eyes of the civilized world. There was nothing to be done now but to let the leaven of sectional malice work, that had been hurled into the slavery discussions in Congress. The bloodless war of words was now transferred to the territory of Kansas, where a conflict of political parties, election frauds, and assassination did their hateful work.

The South began to put her State militia upon a war footing, and to make every preparation for battle. The Administration of President Buchanan was in the interest of the South from beginning to end. He refused to give Gov. John W. Geary, of Kansas, the military support the "border ruffians" made necessary; allowed the public debt to increase, our precious coin to go abroad, our treasury to become depleted, our navy to go to the distant ports of China and Japan, our army to our extremest frontiers, the music of our industries to cease; and the faith of a loyal people in the perpetuity of the republic was allowed to faint amid the din of mobs and the threats of secession.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] There were nearly 500 slaves held in Northern States not placed in this census.



CHAPTER X.

THE "BLACK LAWS" OF "BORDER STATES."

STRINGENT LAWS ENACTED AGAINST FREE NEGROES AND MULATTOES.—FUGITIVE-SLAVE LAW RESPECTED IN OHIO.—A LAW TO PREVENT KIDNAPPING.—THE FIRST CONSTITUTION OF OHIO.—HISTORY OF THE DRED SCOTT CASE.—JUDGE TANEY'S OPINION IN THIS CASE.—OHIO CONSTITUTION OF 1851 DENIED FREE NEGROES THE RIGHT TO VOTE.—THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COLORED SCHOOLS.—LAW IN INDIANA TERRITORY IN REFERENCE TO EXECUTIONS.—AN ACT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEGROES AND MULATTOES INTO THE TERRITORY.—FIRST CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.—THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1818.—CRIMINAL CODE ENACTED.—ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE PASSES AN ACT TO PREVENT THE EMIGRATION OF FREE NEGROES INTO THE STATE.—FREE NEGROES OF THE NORTHERN STATES ENDURE RESTRICTION AND PROSCRIPTION.

Although slavery was excluded from all the new States northwest of the Ohio River, the free Negro was but little better off in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois than in any of the Southern States. From the earliest moment of the organic existence of the border free States, severe laws were enacted against free Negroes and Mulattoes. At the second session of the first Legislature of the State of Ohio, "An Act to Regulate Black and Mulatto Persons"[37] was passed.

Sec. 1. That no black or mulatto person shall be permitted to settle or reside in this State "without a certificate of his or her actual freedom."

2. Resident blacks and mulattoes to have their names recorded, etc. (Amended in 1834, Jan. 5 1, Curwen, 126.) Proviso, "That nothing in this act contained shall bar the lawful claim to any black or mulatto person."

3. Residents prohibited from hiring black or mulatto persons not having a certificate.

4. Forbids, under penalty, to "harbor or secrete any black or mulatto person the property of any person whatever," or to "hinder or prevent the lawful owner or owners from re-taking," etc.

5. Black or mulatto persons coming to reside in the State with a legal certificate, to record the same.

6. "That in case any person or persons, his or their agent or agents, claiming any black or mulatto person or persons that now are or hereafter may be in this State, may apply, upon making satisfactory proof that such black or mulatto person or persons are the property of him or her who applies, to any associate judge or justice of the peace within the State, the associate judge or justice is hereby empowered and required, by his precept, to direct the sheriff or constable to arrest such black or mulatto person or persons, and deliver the same, in the county or township where such officers shall reside, to the claimant or claimants, or his or their agent or agents, for which service the sheriff or constable shall receive such compensation as he is entitled to receive in other cases for similar services."

7. "That any person or persons who shall attempt to remove or shall remove from this State, or who shall aid and assist in removing, contrary to the provisions of this act, any black or mulatto person or persons, without first proving, as herein before directed, that he, she, or they is or are legally entitled so to do, shall, on conviction thereof before any court having cognizance of the same, forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand dollars, one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the State, to be recovered by the action of debt quitam or indictment, and shall moreover be liable to the action of the party injured."

So here upon free soil, under a State government that did not recognize slavery in its constitution, the Negro was compelled to produce a certificate of freedom. Thus the fugitive-slave law was recognized, but at the same time an unlawful removal of free Negroes from the State was forbidden.

At the session of 1806-7, "An Act to Amend the Act Entitled 'an Act Regulating Black and Mulatto Persons,'" was passed amending the old law. The first act simply required "a certificate of freedom"; the amended law required Negroes and Mulattoes intending to settle in Ohio to give a bond not to become a charge upon the county in which they settled. Section four reads as follows:

"4. That no black or mulatto person or persons shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn or give evidence in any court of record or elsewhere in this State, in any cause depending or matter of controversy where either party to the sale is a white person, or in any prosecution which shall be instituted in behalf of this State, against any white person."[38]

But this law did not apply to persons a shade nearer white than Mulatto [the seven-eighths law].[39] Their testimony was admissible, while that of Negroes and Mulattoes was not admitted against them. In Jordan vs. Smith [1846], 14, Ohio, p. 199: "A black person sued by a white, may make affidavit to a plea so as to put the plaintiff to proof."

Attention has been called to the fact that the fugitive-slave law was respected in Ohio. In 1818-19, a law was passed to prevent the unlawful kidnapping of free Negroes, which, in its preamble, recites the provisions of the law of Congress, passed February 12, 1793, respecting fugitives from service and labor.[40] And in 1839 the Legislature passed another act relating to "fugitives from labor," etc., paving the way by the following recital:

"WHEREAS, The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that 'no person' [etc., reciting it]; and whereas the laws now in force within the State of Ohio are wholly inadequate to the protection pledged by this provision of the Constitution to the Southern States of this Union; and whereas it is the duty of those who reap the largest measure of benefits conferred by the Constitution to recognize to their full extent the obligations which that instrument imposes; and whereas it is the deliberate conviction of this General Assembly that the Constitution can only be sustained as it was framed by a spirit of just compromise; therefore."

Sec. 1. Authorizes judges of courts of record, "or any justice of the peace, or the mayor of any city or town corporate," on application, etc., of claimant, to bring the fugitive before a judge within the county where the warrant was issued, or before some State judge with certain cautions as to proving the official character of the officer issuing the warrant; gives the form of warrant, directing the fugitive to be brought before, etc., "to be be dealt with as the law directs."[41]

J. Peck, Esq. [9, Ohio, p. 212], refers to the laws of 1818-19, and 1830-31, as a recognition by the State of Ohio of the power of Congress to pass the act of 1793, though that the act was not specially mentioned.

The first constitution of Ohio [1802] restricted the right of suffrage to "all white male inhabitants." "In all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State one year next preceding the election, and who have paid or are charged with a State or county tax, shall enjoy the right of an elector," etc.[42] This was repeated in the Bill of Rights adopted in 1851.[43]

Article iv., Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States says: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The question as to whether free Negroes were included in the above was discussed at great length in the Dred Scott case, where Chief-Justice Taney took the ground that a Negro was not a citizen under the fourth article of the Constitution. But the fourth article of the Articles of Confederation [1778] recognized free Negroes as citizens. It is given here:

"ART. 4.—The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States—paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted—shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof, respectively; provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, from any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided, also, that no imposition, duty, or restriction shall be laid by any State on the property of the United States, or either of them."[44]

By this it is evident that "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice" were the only persons excluded from the right of citizenship. The following is the history of the Dred Scott case:

"In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year 1838.

"In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as herein before stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson herein before named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year 1838.

"In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat 'Gipsey,' north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.

"In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.

"Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.

"At the time mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times.

* * * * *

"It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; that there was a verdict and judgment in his favor; that on a writ of error to the Supreme Court the judgment below was reversed, and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the decision of this case.

"In May, 1854, the cause went before a jury, who found the following verdict, viz.: 'As to the first issue joined in this case, we of the jury find the defendant not guilty; and as to the issue secondly above joined, we of the jury find that before and at the time when, etc., in the first count mentioned, the said Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury, find that before and at the time when, etc., in the second and third counts mentioned, the said Harriet, wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant.'

"Whereupon, the court gave judgment for the defendant.

"After an ineffectual motion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of exceptions.

"On the trial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, read to the jury the following agreed statement of facts (see agreement above). No further testimony was given to the jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff moved the court to give to the jury the following instructions, viz.:

"'That, upon the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought to find for the plaintiff.' The court refused to give such instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal, then and there duly excepted.

The court then gave the following instruction to the jury, on motion of the defendant:

"'The jury are instructed, that upon the facts in this case, the law is with the defendant.' The plaintiff excepted to this instruction.

"Upon these exceptions, the case came up to the Supreme Court, December term, 1856."[45]

Judge Taney gave the following opinion:

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.

"It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves.

* * * * *

"We proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings.

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty. We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizen' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate [405] and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.

"It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws....

"In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen of any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

"It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And, for the same reason, it cannot introduce any person or description of persons who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

"The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and indue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent. Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State and in its own courts?

"The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts."[46]

This decision of the Supreme Court on the plea in abatement that the plaintiff (a Negro, Dred Scott) was not a citizen in the sense of the word in Article iii, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, was based upon an erroneous idea respecting the location of the word citizen in the instrument. The premise of the court was wrong, and hence the feebleness of the reasoning and the false conclusions. Article iii, Section 2 of the Constitution, extends judicial power to all cases, in law and equity, "between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State," etc. But Article iv, Section 2, declares that "citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The plea in abatement was brought under Article iii, but all the judges, except Justice McLean, built their decision upon the word citizen as it stood in Article iv.

By the constitution of Ohio, adopted in 1851, free Negroes were not only denied the right to vote, but were excluded from the militia service. This law was not repealed until 1878.

Neither the constitution of 1802, nor that of 1851, discriminated against free Negroes in matters of education; but separate schools have been maintained in Ohio from the beginning down to the present time, by special acts of the Legislature.

In the territory of Indiana there were quite a number of Negroes from the beginning of the century. Some were slaves. In 1806, the first Legislature, at its second session, passed a law in reference to executions, as follows:

"Sec. 7. And whereas doubts have arisen whether the time of service of negroes and mulattoes, bound to service in this territory, may be sold on execution against the master, Be it therefore enacted that the time of service of such negroes or mulattoes may be sold on execution against the master, in the same manner as personal estate, immediately from which sale the said negroes or mulattoes shall serve the purchaser or purchasers for the residue of their time of service; and the said purchasers and negroes and mulattoes shall have the same remedies against each other as by the laws of the territory are mutually given them in the several cases therein mentioned, and the purchasers shall be obliged to fulfil to the said servants the contracts they made with the masters, as expressed in the indenture or agreement of servitude, and shall, for want of such contract, be obliged to give him or them their freedom due at the end of the time of service, as expressed in the second section of the law of the territory, entitled 'Law concerning servants,' adopted the twenty-second day of September, eighteen hundred and three. This act shall commence and be in force from and after the first day of February next."[47]

This was bold legislation; but it was not all. Negroes were required to carry passes, as in the slave States. And on the 17th of September, 1807, "An Act for the Introduction of Negroes and Mulattoes into" the territory was passed.

"Sec. 1. That it shall and may be lawful for any person being the owner or possessor of any negroes or mulattoes of and above the age of fifteen years, and owning service and labor as slaves in any of the States or territories of the United States, or for any citizens of the said States or territories purchasing the same to bring the said negroes and mulattoes into this territory.

"Sec. 2. The owners or possessors of any negroes or mulattoes as aforesaid, and bringing the same into this territory, shall, within thirty days after such removal, go with the same before the clerk of Court of Common Pleas of proper county, and in presence of said clerk the said owner or possessor shall determine and agree to, and with his or her negro or mulatto, upon the term of years which the said negro or mulatto will and shall serve his or her said owner or possessor, and the clerk shall make a record.

"Sec. 3. If any negro or mulatto removed into this territory as aforesaid shall refuse to serve his or her owner as aforesaid, it shall and may be lawful for such person, within sixty days thereafter, to remove the said negro or mulatto to any place [to] which by the laws of the United States or territory from whence such owner or possessor may [have come] or shall be authorized to remove the same. (As quoted in Phoebe v. Jay, Breese, Ill. R., 208.)

"Sec. 4. An owner failing to act as required in the preceding sections should forfeit all claim and right to the service of such negro or mulatto.

"Sec. 5. Declares that any person removing into this territory and being the owner or possessor of any negro or mulatto as aforesaid, under the age of fifteen years, or if any person shall hereafter acquire a property in any negro or mulatto under the age aforesaid, and who shall bring them into this territory, it shall and may be lawful for such person, owner, or possessor to hold the said negro to service or labor—the males until they arrive at the age of thirty-five, and females until they arrive at the age of thirty-two years.

"Sec. 6. Provides that any person removing any negro or mulatto into this territory under the authority of the preceding sections, it shall be incumbent on such person, within thirty days thereafter, to register the name and age of such negro or mulatto with the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the proper county.

"Sec. 7. Requires new registry on removal to another county."

"Secs. 8, 9. Penalties by fine for breach of this act.

"Sec. 10. Clerk to take security that negro be not chargeable when his term expires.

"Sec. 12. Fees.

"Sec. 13. That the children born in said territory of a parent of color owning service or labor, by indenture according to law, should serve the master or mistress of such parent—the males until the age of thirty, and the females until the age of twenty-eight years. (As quoted in Boon v. Juliet, 1836, 1, Scammon, 258.)

"Sec. 14. That an act respecting apprentices misused by their master or mistress should apply to such children. (See the statute cited in Rankin v. Lydia, 2, A. K. Marshall's Ky., 467; and in Jarrot v. Jarrot, 2, Gilman, 19.) This act was repealed in 1810."[48]

Under the first constitution of Indiana, adopted in 1816, Negroes were not debarred from the elective franchise. In Article i, Section 1, of the Bill of Rights, this remarkable language occurs: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights," etc. But the very next year the primal rights of the Negro as a citizen were struck down by the following: "No negro, mulatto, or Indian shall be a witness, except in pleas of the State against negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, or in civil cases where negroes, mulattoes, or Indians alone shall be parties."[49]

In 1819 [March 22d], an execution law was passed by which the time of service of Negroes could be sold on execution against the master, in the same manner as personal estate. From the time of the sale, such Negroes or Mulattoes were compelled to serve the buyer until the expiration of the term of service.[50]

In 1831, an act regulating free Negroes and Mulattoes, servants and slaves, declared:

"Sec. 1. Negroes and mulattoes emigrating into the State shall give bond, etc.

"Sec. 2. In failure of this, such negro, etc., may be hired out and the proceeds applied to his benefit, or removed from the State under the poor law.

"Sec. 3. Penalty for committing such without authority.

"Sec. 4. Penalty for harboring such who have not given bond.

"Sec. 5. That the right of any persons to pass through this State, with his, her, or their negroes or mulattoes, servant or servants, when emigrating or travelling to any other State or territory or country, making no unnecessary delay, is hereby declared and secured."[51]

In 1851 the new constitution limited the right of franchise to "white male citizens of the United States." "No negro or mulatto shall have the right of suffrage."

"Art. xii., Sec. 1. The militia shall consist of all able-bodied white male persons, between, etc.

"Art. xiii., Sec. 1. No negro or mulatto shall come into, or settle in the State after the adoption of this Constitution.

"Sec. 2. All contracts made with any negro or mulatto coming into the State contrary to the foregoing section shall be void; and any person who shall employ such negro or mulatto or encourage him to remain in the State shall be fined not less than ten, nor more than five hundred dollars.

"Sec. 3. All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or of any law hereafter passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such negroes and mulattoes and their descendants as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution and may be willing to emigrate.

"Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article."

Other severe laws were enacted calculated to modify and limit the rights of free persons of color.

The first constitution of the State of Illinois, adopted in 1818, limited the [Art. ii, Sec. 27] elective franchise to "free white" persons. Article v, Sec. 1, exempted "negroes, mulattoes, and Indians" from service in the militia. In March, 1819, "An Act Respecting Free Negroes, Mulattoes, Servants, and Slaves" passed. Sec. 1 required Negro and Mulatto persons coming into the State to produce a certificate of freedom. Sec. 2 required them to register their family as well as themselves. Sec. 3 required persons bringing slaves into the State, for the purpose of emancipating them, to give bonds. Passes were required of Colored people, and many other hard exactions. The bill above referred to contained twenty-five sections.[52]

On the 6th of January, 1827, a criminal code was enacted for offences committed by Negroes and servants, which contained many cruel features. On the 2d of February a law was passed declaring that all Negroes, Mulattoes, and Indians were incompetent to be witnesses in any court against a white person; and that a person having one fourth part Negro blood shall be adjudged a Mulatto. This law was re-enacted in 1845.[53] In 1853, February 12th, the Legislature of Illinois passed "An Act to Prevent the Immigration of Free Negroes into this State."

"Secs. 1, 2. Fine and imprisonment for bringing slave, for any purpose, into the State. Proviso: 'That this shall not be construed so as to affect persons or slaves, bona fide, travelling through this State from and to any other State in the United States.'

"Sec. 3. Misdemeanor for negro or mulatto, bond or free, to come with intention of residing.

"Sec. 4. Such may be prosecuted and fined or sold, for time, for fine and costs.

"Secs. 5, 6, 7. If such do not afterwards remove, increased fine and like proceedings, etc., etc. Appeal allowed to the circuit.

"Sec. 8. If claimed as fugitive slave, after being thus arrested, a justice of the peace, 'after hearing the evidence, and being satisfied that the person or persons claiming said negro or mulatto is or are the owner or owners of and entitled to the custody of said negro or mulatto, in accordance with the laws of the United States passed upon this subject,' shall give the owner a certificate, after his paying the costs and the negro's unpaid fine, 'and the said owner or agent so claiming shall have a right to take and remove said slave out of the State.'

"Sec. 9. Punishment of justice for nonfeasance, and of witness falsely accusing negro."[54]

While slavery had no legal, constitutional existence in the three border States, there were, in fact, quite a number of slaves within their jurisdiction during the first generation of their existence. And the free people of Color were, first, denied the right of citizenship; second, excluded from the militia service; third, ruled out of the courts whenever their testimony was offered against a white person; fourth, could not come into the free border States without producing a certificate of freedom; and, fifth, were annoyed by many little, mean laws in the exercise of the few rights they were suffered to enjoy. A full description of the infamous "Black Code" of these States would occupy too much space, and, therefore, the dark subject must be dismissed. Posterity shall know, however, how patiently the free Negroes of the Northern States endured the restrictions and proscriptions which law and public sentiment threw across their social and political pathway!

FOOTNOTES:

[37] 1, Chase, p. 393, sects. 1-7.

[38] 1, Chase, p. 555.

[39] Jeffries vs. Ankeny, 11, Ohio, p. 375.

[40] 2, Chase L., p. 1052.

[41] Curwen, p. 533.

[42] Revised Statutes of Ohio, vol. i. p. 60.

[43] Ibid., p. 111.

[44] Elliot's Debates, vol. i. p. 79.

[45] Sanford's Dred Scott Case, pp. 397-399.

[46] Howard's Reports, vol. xix. pp. 403-405, sq.

[47] Hurd, vol ii. p. 123.

[48] Terr. laws 1807-8, p. 423.

[49] Laws of 1817, ch. 3, sec. 52.

[50] See Hurd, vol. ii. p. 129.

[51] Revised Laws of Indiana, 1838.

[52] Session Laws, 1819, p. 354. R. S., 1833, p. 466.

[53] R. S., 1845, p. 154.

[54] Rev. St. of 1856, p. 780.



CHAPTER XI.

THE NORTHERN NEGROES.

NOMINAL RIGHTS OF NEGROES IN THE SLAVE STATES.—FUGITIVE SLAVES SEEK REFUGE IN CANADA.—NEGROES PETITION AGAINST TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.—A LAW PREVENTING NEGROES FROM OTHER STATES FROM SETTLING IN MASSACHUSETTS.—NOTICE TO BLACKS, INDIANS, AND MULATTOES, WARNING THEM TO LEAVE THE COMMONWEALTH.—THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE NEGRO RESTRICTED.—COLORED MEN TURN THEIR ATTENTION TO THE EDUCATION OF THEIR OWN RACE.—JOHN V. DEGRASSE, THE FIRST COLORED MAN ADMITTED TO THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY.—PROMINENT COLORED MEN OF NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA.—THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL AND COLORED BAPTIST CHURCHES.—COLORED MEN DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES IN THE PULPIT.—REPORT TO THE OHIO ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY OF COLORED PEOPLE IN CINCINNATI IN 1835.—MANY PURCHASE THEIR FREEDOM.—HENRY BOYD, THE MECHANIC AND BUILDER.—HE BECOMES A SUCCESSFUL MANUFACTURER IN CINCINNATI.—SAMUEL T. WILCOX, THE GROCER.—HIS SUCCESS IN BUSINESS IN CINCINNATI.—BALL AND THOMAS, THE PHOTOGRAPHERS.—COLORED PEOPLE OF CINCINNATI EVINCE A DESIRE TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.—LYDIA P. MOTT ESTABLISHES A HOME FOR COLORED ORPHANS.—THE ORGANIZATION EFFECTED IN 1844.—ITS SUCCESS.—FORMATION OF A COLORED MILITARY COMPANY CALLED "THE ATTUCKS GUARDS."—EMIGRATION OF NEGROES TO LIBERIA.—THE COLORED PEOPLE LIVE DOWN MUCH PREJUDICE.

In 1850 there were 238,187 free Negroes in the slave States. Their freedom was merely nominal. They were despised beneath the slaves, and were watched with suspicious eyes, and disliked by their brethren in bondage.

In 1850 there were 196,016 free Negroes in the Northern States. Their increase came from [chiefly] two sources, viz.: births and emancipated persons from the South. Fugitive slaves generally went to Canada, for in addition to being in danger of arrest under the fugitive-slave law, none of the State governments in the North sympathized with escaped Negroes. The Negroes in the free States were denied the rights of citizenship, and were left to the most destroying ignorance. In 1780, some free Negroes, of the town of Dartmouth, petitioned the General Court of Massachusetts for relief from taxation, because they were denied the privileges and duties of citizenship. The petition set forth the hardships free Negroes were obliged to endure, even in Massachusetts, and was in itself a proof of the fitness of the petitioners for the duties of citizenship.

"To the Honorable Council and House of Representatives, in General Court Assembled, for the State of Massachusetts Bay, in New England:

"The petition of several poor negroes and mulattoes, who are inhabitants of the town of Dartmouth, humbly showeth:

"That we being chiefly of the African extract, and by reason of long bondage and hard slavery, we have been deprived of enjoying the profits of our labor or the advantage of inheriting estates from our parents, as our neighbors the white people do, having some of us not long enjoyed our own freedom; yet of late, contrary to the invariable custom and practice of the country, we have been, and now are, taxed both in our polls and that small pittance of estate which, through much hard labor and industry, we have got together to sustain ourselves and families withall. We apprehend it, therefore, to be hard usage, and will doubtless (if continued) reduce us to a state of beggary, whereby we shall become a burthen to others, if not timely prevented by the interposition of your justice and power.

"Your petitioners further show, that we apprehend ourselves to be aggrieved, in that, while we are not allowed the privilege of freemen of the State, having no vote or influence in the election of those that tax us, yet many of our color (as is well known) have cheerfully entered the field of battle in the defence of the common cause, and that (as we conceive) against a similar exertion of power (in regard to taxation) too well known to need a recital in this place.

"We most humble request, therefore, that you would take our unhappy case into your serious consideration, and, in your wisdom and power, grant us relief from taxation, while under our present depressed circumstances; and your poor petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray, etc.

"JOHN CUFFE, "ADVENTUR CHILD, "PAUL CUFFE, "SAMUEL GRAY, [his x mark.] "PERO ROWLAND, [his x mark.] "PERO RUSSELL, [his x mark.] "PERO COGGESHALL.

"Dated at Dartmouth, the 10th of February, 1780.

"Memorandum in the handwriting of John Cuffe:

"This is the copy of the petition which we did deliver unto the Honorable Council and House, for relief from taxation in the days of our distress. But we received none. JOHN CUFFE."[55]

Not discouraged at the failure that attended the above petition, the indefatigable Paul Cuffe, addressed the following to the selectmen of his town the next year.

"A REQUEST.

"To the Selectmen of the Town of Dartmouth, Greeting:

We, the subscribers, your humble petitioners, desire that you would, in your capacity, put a stroke in your next warrant for calling a town meeting, so that it may legally be laid before said town, by way of vote, to know the mind of said town, whether all free negroes and mulattoes shall have the same privileges in this said Town of Dartmouth as the white people have, respecting places of profit, choosing of officers, and the like, together with all other privileges in all cases that shall or may happen or be brought in this our said Town of Dartmouth. We, your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray,

[Signed] "JOHN CUFFE, "PAUL CUFFE,

"Dated at Dartmouth, the 22d of the 4th mo., 1781,"

As early as 1788 Massachusetts passed a law requiring all Negroes who were not citizens, to leave the Commonwealth within two months from the date of the publication of the law. It has been said, upon good authority, that this law was drawn by several of the ablest lawyers in the Bay State, and was intended to keep out all Negroes from the South who, being emancipated, might desire to settle there. It became a law on the 26th of March, 1788, and instead of becoming a dead letter, was published and enforced in post-haste. The following section is the portion of the act pertinent to this inquiry.

"V. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid [the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled], that no person being an African or Negro, other than a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some one of the United States (to be evidenced by a certificate from the Secretary of the State of which he shall be a citizen), shall tarry within this Commonwealth, for a longer time than two months, and upon complaint made to any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, that any such person has been within the same more than two months, the said Justice shall order the said person to depart out of this Commonwealth, and in case that the said African or Negro shall not depart as aforesaid, any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made that such person has continued within this Commonwealth ten days after notice given him or her to depart as aforesaid, shall commit the said person to any house of correction within the county, there to be kept to hard labor, agreeable to the rules and orders of the said house, until the Sessions of the Peace, next to be holden within and for the said county; and the master of the said house of correction is hereby required and directed to transmit an attested copy of the warrant of commitment to the said Court on the first day of their said session, and if upon trial at the said Court, it shall be made to appear that the said person has thus continued within the Commonwealth, contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of this Commonwealth within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process shall be had and punishment inflicted, and so toties quoties."[56]

The following notice, with the subjoined names, shows that the cruel law was enforced.

NOTICE TO BLACKS.

The Officers of Police having made return to the Subscriber of the names of the following persons, who are Africans or Negroes, not subjects of the Emperor of Morocco nor citizens of the United States, the same are hereby warned and directed to depart out of this Commonwealth before the 10th day of October next, as they would avoid the pains and penalties of the law in that case provided, which was passed by the Legislature, March 26, 1788.

CHARLES BULFINCH, Superintendent.

By Order and Direction of the Selectmen.

Portsmouth—Prince Patterson, Eliza Cotton, Flora Nash.

Rhode Island—Thomas Nichols and Philis Nichols, Hannah Champlin, Plato Alderson, Raney Scott, Jack Jeffers, Thomas Gardner, Julius Holden, Violet Freeman, Cuffy Buffum, Sylvia Gardner, Hagar Blackburn, Dolly Peach, Polly Gardner, Sally Alexander, Philis Taylor.

Providence—Dinah Miller, Salvia Hendrick, Rhode Allen, Nancy Hall, Richard Freeman, Elizabeth Freeman, Nancy Gardner, Margaret Harrison.

Connecticut—Bristol Morandy, John Cooper, Scipio Kent, Margaret Russell, Phoebe Seamore, Phoebe Johnson, Jack Billings.

New London—John Denny, Thomas Burdine, Hannah Burdine.

New York—Sally Evens, Sally Freeman, Caesar West and Hannah West, Thomas Peterson, Thomas Santon, Henry Sanderson, Henry Wilson, Robert Willet, Edward Cole, Mary Atkins, Polly Brown, Amey Spalding, John Johnson, Rebecca Johnson, George Homes, Prince Kilsbury, Abraham Fitch, Joseph Hicks, Abraham Francis, Elizabeth Francis, Sally Williams, William Williams, Rachel Pewinck, David Dove, Esther Dove, Peter Bayle, Thomas Bostick, Katy Bostick, Prince Hayes, Margaret Bean, Nancy Hamik, Samuel Benjamin, Peggy Ocamum, Primus Hutchinson.

Philadelphia—Mary Smith, Richard Allen, Simon Jeffers, Samuel Posey, Peter Francies, Prince Wales, Elizabeth Branch, Peter Gust, William Brown, Butterfield Scotland, Clarissa Scotland, Cuffy Cummings, John Gardner, Sally Gardner, Fortune Gorden, Samuel Stevens.

Baltimore—Peter Larkin and Jenny Larkin, Stepney Johnson, Anne Melville.

Virginia—James Scott, John Evens, Jane Jackson, Cuffey Cook, Oliver Nash, Robert Woodson, Thomas Thompson.

North Carolina—James Jurden, Polly Johnson, Janus Crage.

South Carolina—Anthony George, Peter Cane.

Halifax—Catherine Gould, Charlotte Gould, Cato Small, Philis Cole, Richard M'Coy.

West Indies—James Morfut and Hannah his wife, Mary Davis, George Powell, Peter Lewis, Charles Sharp, Peter Hendrick, William Shoppo and Mary Shoppo, Isaac Johnson, John Pearce, Charles Esings, Peter Branch, Newell Symonds, Rosanna Symonds, Peter George, Lewis Victor, Lewis Sylvester, John Laco, Thomas Foster, Peter Jesemy, Rebecca Jesemy, David Bartlet, Thomas Grant, Joseph Lewis, Hamet Lewis, John Harrison, Mary Brown, Boston Alexander.

Cape Francois—Casme Francisco and Nancy his wife, Mary Fraceway.

Aux Cayes—Susannah Ross.

Port-au-Prince—John Short.

Jamaica—Charlotte Morris, John Robinson.

Bermuda—Thomas Williams.

New Providence—Henry Taylor.

Liverpool—John Mumford.

Africa—Francis Thompson, John Brown, Mary Joseph, James Melvile, Samuel Bean, Hamlet Earl, Cato Gardner, Charles Mitchel, Sophia Mitchel, Samuel Frazier, Samuel Blackburn, Timothy Philips, Joseph Ocamum.

France—Joseph ——

Isle of France—Joseph Lovering.

LIST OF INDIANS AND MULATTOES.

The following persons from several of the United States, being people of colour, commonly called Mulattoes, are presumed to come within the intention of the same law, and are accordingly warned and directed to depart out of the Commonwealth before the 10th day of October next.

Rhode Island—Peter Badger, Kelurah Allen, Waley Green, Silvia Babcock.

Providence—Polly Adams, Paul Jones.

Connecticut—John Brown, Polly Holland, John Way and Nancy Way, Peter Virginia, Leville Steward, Lucinda Orange, Anna Sprague, Britton Doras, Amos Willis, Frank Francies.

New London—Hannah Potter.

New York—Jacob and Nelly Cummings, James and Rebecca Smith, Judith Chew, John Schumagger, Thomas Willouby, Peggy Willouby, John Reading, Mary Reading, Charles Brown, John Miles, Hannah Williams, Betsy Harris, Douglass Brown, Susannah Foster, Thomas Burros, Mary Thomson, James and Freelove Buck, Lucy Glapcion, Lucy Lewis, Eliza Williams, Diana Bayle, Caesar and Sylvia Caton, —— Thompson, William Guin.

Albany—Elone Virginia, Abijah Reed and Lydia Reed, Abijah Reed, Jr., Rebecca Reed and Betsy Reed.

New Jersey—Stephen Boadley, Hannah Victor.

Philadelphia—Polly Boadley, James Long, Hannah Murray, Jeremiah Green, Nancy Principeso, David Johnson, George Jackson William Coak, Moses Long.

Maryland—Nancy Gust.

Baltimore—John Clark, Sally Johnson.

Virginia—Sally Hacker, Richard and John Johnson, Thomas Stewart, Anthony Paine, Mary Burk, William Hacker, Polly Losours, Betsy Guin, Lucy Brown.

Africa—Nancy Doras.[57]

The constitutions of nearly all the States, statutes, or public sentiment drove the Negro from the ballot-box, excused him from the militia, and excluded him from the courts. Although born on the soil, a soldier in two wars, an industrious, law-abiding person, the Negro, nevertheless, was not regarded as a member of political society. He was taxed, but enjoyed no representation; was governed by laws, and yet, had no voice in making the laws.

The doors of nearly all the schools of the entire North were shut in his face; and the few separate schools accorded him were given grudgingly. They were usually held in the lecture-room of some Colored church edifice, or thrust off to one side in a portion of the city or town toward which aristocratic ambition would never turn. These schools were generally poorly equipped; and the teachers were either Colored persons whose opportunities of securing an education had been poor, or white persons whose mental qualifications would not encourage them to make an honest living among their own race; there were noble exceptions.

A deeply rooted prejudice shut the Negro out from the trades. He could not acquire the art of setting type, civil engineering, building machinery, house carpentering, or any of the trades. The schools of medicine, law, and theology were not open to him; and even if he secured admission into some gentleman's office, or instruction from some divine, the future gave him no promise. The white wings of hope were broken in an ineffectual attempt to move against the bitter winds of persecution, under the dark sky of hate and proscription. Corporations, churches, theatres, and political parties made the Negro a subject of official action. If a Negro travelled by stage coach, it was among the baggage in the "boot," or on top with the driver. If he were favored with a ride on a street car, it was in a separate car marked, "This car for Colored people." If he journeyed any distance by rail, he was assigned to the "Jim Crow" car, or "smoker," where himself and family were subjected to inconvenience, insult, and the society of the lowest class of white rowdies. If he were hungry and weary at the end of the journey, there was "no room for him in the inn," and, like his Master, was assigned a place among the cattle. If he were so fortunate as to get into a hotel as a servant, bearing the baggage of his master, he slept in the garret, and took his meals in the kitchen. It mattered not who the Colored man was—whether it was Langston, the lawyer, McCune Smith, the physician, or Douglass, the orator—he found no hotel that would give him accommodations. And forsooth, if some host had the temerity to admit a Negro to his dining-room, a dozen white guests would leave the hotel rather than submit to the "outrage!"

The places of amusements in all the large cities in the North excluded the Negro; and when he did gain admission, he was shown to the gallery, where he could enjoy peanut-hulls, boot-blacks, and "black-legs." Occasionally the side door of a college was put ajar for some invincible Negro. But this was a performance of very rare occurrence; and the instances are easily remembered.

When courts and parties, corporations and companies had refused to accord the Negro the rights that were his due as a man, he carried his case to the highest earthly court, the Christian Church. He felt sure of sympathy and succor from this source. The Church had stood through the centuries as a refuge for the unfortunate and afflicted. But, alas! the Church shrank from the Negro as if he had been a reptile. If he gained admission it was to the "Negro pew" in the "organ loft." If he secured the precious "emblems of the broken body and shed blood" of his Divine Master, it was after the "white folks" were through. If the cause of the Negro were mentioned in the prayer or sermon, it was in the indistinct whisper of the moral coward who occupied the sacred desk. And when the fight was on at fever heat, when it was popular to plead the cause of the slave and demand the rights of the free Negro, the Church was the last organization in the country to take a position on the question; and even then, her "moderation was known to all men."

If the Negro had suffered from neglect only, had been left to solve the riddle of his anomalous existence without further embarrassment, it would have been well. But no, it was not so. Studied insolence jostled Colored men and women from the streets of the larger cities; mobocratic violence broke up assemblages and churches of Colored people; and malice sought them in the quiet of their homes—outraged and slew them in cold blood. Thus with the past as a haunting, bitter recollection, the present filled with fear and disaster, and the future a shapeless horror, think ye life was sweet to the Negro? Bitter? Bitter as death? Ay, bitter as hell!

Driven down from the lofty summit of laudable ambitions into the sultry plains of domestic drudgery and menial toil, nearly every ray of hope had perished upon the strained vision of the Negro. The only thing young Colored men could aspire to was the position of a waiter, the avocation of a barber, the place of a house-servant or groom, and teach or preach to their own people with little or no qualifications. Denied the opportunities and facilities of securing an education, they were upbraided by the press and pulpit, in private gatherings and public meetings, for their ignorance, which was enforced by a narrow and contracted public prejudice.

But "none of these things moved" the Negro. Undismayed he bowed to his herculean task with a complacency and courage worthy of any race or age of the world's history. The small encouragement that came to him from the conscientious minority of white men and women was as refreshing as the cool ocean breeze at even-tide to the feverish brow of a travel-soiled pilgrim. The Negro found it necessary to exert himself, to lift himself out of his social, mental, and political dilemma by the straps of his boots. Colored men turned their attention to the education of themselves and their children. Schools were begun, churches organized, and work of general improvement and self-culture entered into with alacrity and enthusiasm. Boston had among its teachers the scholarly Thomas Paul; among its clergymen Leonard A. Grimes and John T. Raymond; among its lawyers Robert Morris and E. G. Walker; among its business men J. B. Smith and Coffin Pitts; among its physicians John R. Rock and John V. DeGrasse; among its authors Brown and Nell; and among its orators Remond and Hilton. Robert Morris was admitted to the bar in Boston, on Thursday, June 27, 1850, at a meeting of the members of the Suffolk County Bar. The record is as follows:

"Resolved, That ROBERT MORRIS, Esq., be recommended for admittance to practice as a Counsellor and Attorney of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States.

"(Signed) ELLIS GRAY LORING, Chairman. "CHAS. THEO. RUSSELL, Secretary."

John V. DeGrasse, M.D., an eminent physician of Boston was perhaps the most accomplished Colored gentleman in New England between 1850-1860. The following notice appeared in a Boston journal in August, 1854:

"On the 24th of August, 1854, Mr. DeGrasse was admitted in due form a member of the 'Massachusetts Medical Society.' It is the first instance of such honor being conferred upon a colored man in this State, at least, and probably in the country; and therefore it deserves particular notice, both because the means by which he has reached this distinction are creditable to his own intelligence and perseverance, and because others of his class may be stimulated to seek an elevation which has hitherto been supposed unattainable by men of color. The Doctor is a native of New York City, where he was born in June, 1825, and where he spent his time in private and public schools till 1840. He then entered the Oneida Institute, Beriah Green, President, and spent one year; but as Latin was not taught there, he left and entered the Clinton Seminary, where he remained two years, intending to enter college in the fall of 1843. He was turned from this purpose, however, by the persuasions of a friend in France, and after spending two years in a college in that country, he returned to New York in November, 1845, and commenced the study of medicine with Dr. Samuel R. Childs, of that city. There he spent two years in patient and diligent study, and then two more in attending the medical lectures of Bowdoin College, Me. Leaving that institution with honor in May, 1849, he went again to Europe in the autumn of that year, and spent considerable time in the hospitals of Paris, travelling, at intervals, through parts of France, England, Italy, and Switzerland. Returning home in the ship 'Samuel Fox,' in the capacity of surgeon, he was married in August, 1852, and since that time he has practised medicine in Boston. Earning a good reputation here by his diligence and skill, he was admitted a member of the Medical Society, as above stated. Many of our most respectable physicians visit and advise with him whenever counsel is required. The Boston medical profession, it must be acknowledged, has done itself honor in thus discarding the law of caste, and generously acknowledging real merit, without regard to the hue of the skin."

The Colored population of New York was equal to the great emergency that required them to put forth their personal exertions. Dr. Henry Highland Garnet, Dr. Charles B. Ray, and the Rev. Peter Williams in the pulpit; Charles L. Reason and William Peterson as teachers; James McCune Smith and Philip A. White as physicians and chemists; James Williams and Jacob Day among business men, did much to elevate the Negro in self-respect and self-support.

Philadelphia early ranked among her foremost leaders of the Colored people, William Whipper, Stephen Smith, Robert Purvis, William Still, Frederick A. Hinton, and Joseph Cassey. From an inquiry instituted in 1837, it was ascertained that out of the 18,768 Colored people in Philadelphia, 250 had paid for their freedom the aggregate sum of $79,612, and that the real and personal property owned by them was near $1,500,000. There were returns of several chartered benevolent societies for the purpose of affording mutual aid in sickness and distress, and there were sixteen houses of public worship, with over 4,000 communicants. And in Western Pennsylvania there were John Peck, John B. Vashon, Geo. Gardner, and Lewis Woodson. Every State in the North seemed to produce Colored men of marked ability to whom God committed a great work. Their examples of patient fortitude, industry, and frugality, and their determined efforts to obtain knowledge and build up character, stimulated the youth of the Negro race to greater exertions in the upward direction.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church was organized as early as 1816. Its churches grew and its ministry increased in numbers, intelligence, and piety, until it became the most powerful organization of Colored men on the continent. The influence of this organization upon the Colored race in America was excellent. It brought the people together, not only in religious sympathy, but by the ties of a common interest in all affairs of their race and condition. The men in the organization who possessed the power of speech, who had talents to develop, and an ambition to serve their race, found this church a wide field of usefulness.

The Colored Baptists were organized before the Methodists, [in Virginia,] but their organization has always lacked strength. The form of government, being purely Democratic, was adapted to a people of larger intelligence and possessed of greater capacity for self-government. But, notwithstanding this fact, the "independent" order of Colored Baptists gave the members and clergymen of the denomination exalted ideas of government, and abiding confidence in the capacity of the Negro for self-government. No organization of Colored people in America has produced such able men as the Colored Baptist Church.

In Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, Colored men distinguished themselves in the pulpit, in the forum, in business, and letters. William Howard Day, of Cleveland, during this period [1850-1860] Librarian of the Cleveland Library and editor of a newspaper; John Mercer Langston, of Oberlin; John Liverpool and John I. Gaines, of Cincinnati, Ohio, were good men and true. What they did for their race was done worthily and well. At the Ohio Anti-Slavery Convention, held at Putnam on the 22d, 23d, and 24th of April, 1835, the committee on the condition of the "people of Color," made the following report from Cincinnati:

The number of Colored people in Cincinnati is about 2,500. As illustrating their general condition, we will give the statistics of one or two small districts. The families in each were visited from house to house, taking them all as far as we went:

Number of families in one of these districts 26 " of individuals 125 " of heads of families 49 " of heads of families who are professors of religion 19 " of children at school 20 " of heads of families who have been slaves 39 " of individuals who have been slaves 95 Time since they obtained their freedom, from 1 to 15 years; average, 7 years. Number of individuals who have purchased themselves 23 Whole amount paid for themselves $9,112 Number of fathers and mothers still in slavery 9 " of children 18 " of brothers and sisters 98 " of newspapers taken 0 " of heads of families who can read 2

EMPLOYMENT OF HEADS OF FAMILIES.

Common laborers and porters 7 Dealers in second-hand clothing 1 Hucksters 1 Carpenters 2 Shoe-blacks 6 Cooks and waiters 11 Washer-women 18

Five of these women purchased themselves from slavery. One paid four hundred dollars for herself, and has since bought a house and lot worth six hundred dollars. All this she has done by washing.

Another individual had bargained for his wife and two children. Their master agreed to take four hundred and twenty dollars for them. He succeeded at length in raising the money, which he carried to their owner. "I shall charge you thirty dollars more than when you was here before," said the planter, "for your wife is in a family-way, and you may pay thirty dollars for that or not take her, just as you please." "And so," said he (patting the head of a little son, three years old, who hung upon his knee), "I had to pay thirty dollars for this little fellow six months before he was born."

Number of families in another district 63 " of individuals 258 " of heads of families 106 " of families who are professors of religion 16 " of heads of families at school 53 " of newspapers taken 7 Amount of property in real estate $9,850 Number of individuals who have been slaves 108 " of heads of families who have been slaves 69 Age at which they obtained their freedom, from 3 months to 60 years; average, 33 years. Time since they obtained their freedom, from 4 weeks to 27 years; average, 9 years. Number of heads of families who have purchased themselves, 36 Whole amount paid for themselves $21,515.00 Average price $597.64 Number of children which the same families have already purchased 14 Whole amount paid for these children $2,425.75 Average price $173.27 Total amount paid for these parents and children $23,940.75 Number of parents still in slavery 16 " of husbands or wives 7 " of children 35 " of brothers and sisters 144

These districts were visited without the least reference to their being exhibited separately. If they give a fair specimen of the whole population (and we believe that to be a fact), then we have the following results: 1,129 of the Colored population of Cincinnati have been in slavery; 476 have purchased themselves, at the total expense of $215,522.04, averaging for each, $452.77; 163 parents are still in slavery, 68 husbands and wives, 346 children, 1,579 brothers and sisters.