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

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

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

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

Mr Williamson stated the law of N. Carolina on the subject, to wit that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of L5. on each slave imported from Africa. L10. on each from elsewhere, & L50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the S. States could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected, and that it was wrong to force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The slaves were moreover exempt from duty on importation.

They served to render the representation from such States aristocratical.

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

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

They had enjoyed the right of importing slaves when colonies.

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

Several additions were reported by the Committee.[564]

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

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

Mr. Ghorum 2ded the motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Govr. Morris withdrew his motion.

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

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

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

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

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

Genl. Pinkney admitted that it was so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1789 Madison said:

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

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

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

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

In the House of Representatives on February 12, 1790:

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

According to George Mason's Account:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the same day when the question came up again:

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

The Committee of Style reported:

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

On the thirteenth of September,

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

Two days later:

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

The Constitution provided then:

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[538] Ibid., p. 208.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[566] Maryland Historical Magazine, December, 1909.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[584] Ibid., p. 628.

[585] Ibid., p. 662.



SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



BOOK REVIEWS

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

ORVILLE HOLLIDAY.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

IDA GIBBS HUNT.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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