Dissatisfied with results but not discouraged, however, Washington appointed commissioners, December 7th, 1798, to work with commissioners from Great Britain and proceed with the infractions of the treaty. A short time thereafter President Adams in an address to Congress, November 23, 1797, reported that several decisions on the claims of citizens of the United States for losses and damages sustained by reason of irregular and illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels or other property had been made by the commissioners in London, conformably to the Seventh Article of the Treaty. "The sums awarded by the Commissioners," said he, "have been paid by the British Government; a considerable number of other claims where costs and damages and not captured property were the only objects in question have been decided by arbitration, and the sums awarded to the citizens of the United States have also been paid."[55] These decisions served to allay the discontent in America. Still later, Adams informed Congress that "such progress had been made in the examination and decision of cases ... which were the subject of the Seventh Article that it is supposed the Commissioners will be able to bring their business to a conclusion in August of the ensuing year."[56]

No account of the final settlement of these claims, however, is found in the sources. Dissatisfaction became more intense. Claimants were pressing on all sides for a fair compensation for the loss of their property. So serious was the situation that the House of Representatives went beyond its accustomed limitation and discussed in 1798 the treaty-making power of the United States. Pressure had been brought to bear upon the representatives of the people because the Jay Treaty had been ratified by the President and Senate and it did not contain a provision covering the return of the Negroes.

Further efforts, nevertheless, were made to adjust the differences between the two countries. They, however, were of little avail. The Republican policy of Jefferson which this country strictly followed from 1801 to 1809 had as its basic principle that governments ought to do as little as possible. Hence our army and navy were cut down to the extent that the American Government could not assert itself against foreign encroachment. Particularly in 1804 our relations with Great Britain became worse when the Jay Treaty of 1794 by agreement was allowed to expire. To compel Great Britain to come to terms Congress enacted a non-important act which never had the desired effect.

Soon thereafter the continental system and the paper blockade engaged the attention of the American Government. Negotiations had failed. Great Britain would not make a treaty. The accumulation of injuries called for action of some kind. To yield and say nothing meant to give up the rights of an independent nation. For this reason Jefferson introduced in 1807 the Embargo with which he hoped to force France as well as Great Britain to come to terms—to recognize the United States as a "free sovereign and independent nation." Meanwhile a spirit of nationality was developing in the country. Soon thereafter war was declared and waged against Great Britain to win the respect and honor which every nation deserves.

In this state of war the provisions of the Treaty of Paris and the Jay Treaty were nullified. In response to an inquiry as to whether these treaties, so far as they were not fully executed, terminated by the War of 1812, the British Department of State in a communication replied that "with respect to the treaties you are informed that they were claimed by Great Britain at the conclusion of the Treaty of Ghent to have terminated by the War of 1812."

Against this view the United States protested. In the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. the Town of New Haven, the view was expressed that provisions of a treaty remain in full force in spite of war.[57] The general rule of inter-national law, however, is that war terminates all subsisting treaties between the belligerent powers.[58] The United States, moreover, soon acquiesced in this view, for President Polk in his message to Congress, December 7, 1847, said, "a state of war abrogates treaties previously existing between the belligerents."[59] Great Britain then was legally excused by the best authorities of the world from executing fully the provisions of the Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794.

As a result, the same policy in regard to the carrying away of Negroes was followed during the War of 1812.[60] While the British forces were occupying the forts and harbors of the United States, Negroes came within their possession. Many were induced to run away while others were captured in battles. From the Dauphin Islands-possessions claimed to be without the limits of the newly acquired Louisiana territory the British carried away slaves. In fact, from whatever places the British occupied they carried away Negroes. Many Negroes came also into the possession of the British by the proclamation of Admiral Cochrane of Great Britain, April 2, 1814, setting such loyal adherents free. In effect, this proclamation extended an invitation to all persons desiring to change their slave status. Although the proclamation[61] did not specify the Negroes, the meaning and object of Admiral Cochrane was evidently to bring Negroes within the British lines. Many, to be sure, responded to the proclamation. As many more, no doubt, were carried away from the United States by the British under the veil that they were captives in the war and, therefore, no longer the property of American inhabitants.

With victory assured and the representatives of Great Britain and America assembled in Ghent, July 11, 1814, one of the first questions for the commissioners to consider was evidently the return of the Negroes. This question had primary consideration in the final draft of the Treaty of Ghent. By the first article of the treaty it was provided that "all possessions whatsoever taken by either party during the war or which might have been taken after the signing of this treaty shall be restored without delay and that these possessions should not be destroyed." It specified, moreover, that artillery, public and private property, originally captured in the forts of the United States should not be carried away.[62]

Negroes were carried away by the British forces after the treaty was signed as well as before. In Georgia many Negroes came into possession of the British at Cumberland Island fortified by Admiral Cockburn.[63] In a letter dated November 22, 1914, Joseph Cabell gave evidence to support the above-mentioned facts when he declared that he was on board a British squadron in Lynnhaven Bay at the time Major Thomas of York attempted to recover his Negroes, who had gone off to the British and that the destination of the Negroes on board the ships was a subject of curiosity and concern. Soon, however, he learned that they were to be sold in the Bahamas.[64] From another reliable source comes the information that a shameful traffic had been carried on in the West Indies.[65] Secretary Monroe presented to the Senate, moreover, an affidavit of a Captain Williams who had been a prisoner in the Bahamas for some time. In this he declared that he had been present at the sale of Negroes taken from the vicinity of Norfolk and Hampton. "This affidavit," said Monroe, "was voluntarily given and the facts have been corroborated by a variety of circumstances."

Such information was given in the Senate. In discussing the ratification of the treaty the Senate suggested that commissioners be appointed to carry into effect the first article. In line with this view John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin were authorized to supervise the execution of this article. In a communication to Secretary Monroe, Feb. 23, 1815, the commissioners reported that "all slaves and other private property are claimed to be delivered up."[66]

So much progress in so short a time was remarkable. To adjust all the claims in an amicable way would hardly occur. It was soon learned by the commissioners that "all slaves and other private property" were delivered up by the British using as their guide a different construction of Article I. "The construction," Monroe said, "ignored the distinction which existed between public and private property." Had it been intended he continued, "to put slaves and other private property on the same ground with artillery and other public property the terms "originally captured in the said forts or places which shall remain therein on the exchange of the ratification of the Treaty" would have followed at the end of the sentence after "slaves and other private property."[67] With their construction, he contended that both interests, the public and private would have been subject to the same limitation. Besides, Monroe held that the restrictive words immediately following "artillery and other public property" was not intended to include the words "slaves and other private property." If "the slaves and other private property" are placed on the same footing with artillery and other public property, "the consequences must be that all will be carried away."

Monroe learned, furthermore, that Mr. Baker, Charge D'affaires of Great Britain, had placed another construction on Article I of the treaty. In this new construction he had made a distinction between slaves who were in British ships of war in American waters and those in the ports held by British forces at the time of the exchange of ratifications.[68] Monroe and the commissioners, on the other hand, were of the opinion that the United States was entitled to all slaves in possession of the British forces within the limits of the United States forts or British ships of war. Concerning this opinion Baker wrote April 3, 1815, that it could not be shown that Monroe's construction was sanctioned by the words of the Article. "If this construction had been known then," he remarked, "we would have decidedly objected to it and proposed others."[69]

Accessible reports indicate that the governments of Great Britain and the United States persisted in the constructions given by their respective representatives. Clavelle, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in the Chesapeake, claimed that the treaty meant only such slaves or other private property should be delivered up as were "originally captured in the forts or places to be restored." In conformity with their construction of the Article, Clavelle refused furthermore to restore the slaves taken from Tangier Islands, because they were not originally captured there. The United States, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the country was entitled to all slaves within its limits on the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty. The United States believed, finally, that the carrying away of Negroes applied to both kinds of property because the word was common to both descriptions.

By the usage of civilized nations in cases of invasion private property with the exception of maritime captures was respected. This meant, in effect, that none could be lawfully taken away. Influenced by this usage Great Britain receded from her position and declared that the claim of the United States to indemnification for her slaves—had never been resisted. In the meantime Great Britain declared April 10, 1816, that she could not consider any property which had been previous to ratification of the treaty removed on shipboard as "property forming a subject for a claim of restoration or indemnification." In spirit, these two declarations were contradictory. Besides they made the subject more difficult and puzzling.

In the meanwhile the work of the commissioners continued. In their efforts to take an inventory of the slaves so that the claims might be adjusted, they encountered the opposition of Clavelle and Cockburn. It was clearly evident that the efforts of the commissioners would be of no avail. More coercive means were necessary to settle such an extended and controversial question. In a convention of commerce between Great Britain and the United States October 20, 1818, representatives realized that an agreement in regard to the Negroes was hardly possible. The representatives from the United States, therefore, offered to refer the differences to some friendly sovereign or State to be named for that purpose. They agreed further to consider the decision of such a friendly sovereign or State to be "final and conclusive."[70]

Very soon thereafter the Emperor of Russia offered to use his good offices as mediator and after a short discussion, his proposal was accepted. To this end there was concluded on June 30, 1822, a convention in which the adjustment of the claims for indemnity was left to a mixed commission. This action was followed by desultory and extended discussions which terminated, nevertheless, in the final disposition of the controversy. The point of difference was decided in favor of the United States. In handing down his decision the Emperor held that the limitations as to the restitution of public property bore no relation to private property. In effect, he said that the treaty prohibited the carrying away of any private property whatever from the places and territories stipulated in Article I of the Treaty of Ghent. He contended that "the United States was entitled to consider as having been carried away all slaves who had been transported from those territories on board of English vessels within the waters of American territories and who for that reason had not been restored."[71]

In compliance with the decision of the Emperor of Russia a mixed commission, one commissioner and one arbitrator from Great Britain as well as the United States met July 30, 1822, at Washington, D.C., under the Emperor's mediation.[72] For the United States Langdon Cheves was the commissioner and Henry Sewell the arbitrator; for Great Britain George Jackson was the commissioner and John McTavish the arbitrator. George Hay was appointed, also, by the President of the United States to give such information and support that might be needed since individual claimants could not be present. The purpose of the commission was to prove the average value of the Negroes at the time of the ratification of the treaty and to determine the validity of individual claims. In the event no agreement could be reached recourse was had to the Emperor of Russia whose decision would be "final and conclusive." This action was insisted upon by America, whereas Great Britain persisted in refusing to submit such matters to the Emperor. Their progress, as a result, was not very marked. In considering the "definitive lists"[73] of claims these commissioners encountered many more doubtful and intricate problems. Claims not contained in this list were not to be taken cognizance of; nor was the British government required to make compensation for them. With respect to compensation, Great Britain promised to produce all evidence which was in the possession of her naval and military officers concerning the number of slaves carried away. It was provided by the commission that no payment was to be made within twelve months. September 11, 1822, the board unanimously agreed on the average value of slaves as follows:

Each slave from Louisiana $580 Each slave from Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama 390 Each slave from Maryland, Virginia and other States 280

The next difficulty of the board occurred in regard to the allowance of interest on claims. Concerning this point, Cheves held that a reasonable compensation for the injury sustained should have been granted. "A just compensation," said Cheves, "is the reestablishment of the thing taken away with an equivalent for the use of it during the period of detention." In reply to this Jackson held that the convention of 1822 did not grant the commissioners the power to fix interests and, besides, that interests not being a part of the debt could not be allowed. Realizing the futility of his claims Cheves offered to submit the difference to arbitration, but Jackson declined.

Equally difficult questions arose in regard to the slaves taken away from Dauphin Island in Mobile Bay.[74] This island, controlled by the British during the war, was later surrendered to the United States. Concerning this Jackson held that it was not legally at the time of the ratifications of the treaty a part of the United States, that is, it was not a part of Louisiana but belonged to West Florida, which was not ceded to the United States until 1819.[75] In regard to this Cheves offered to refer these claims to arbitration, but in this view Jackson refused to acquiesce. The situation did not become any better even when Rufus King was sent as our minister to England to succeed Henry Clay who became John Quincy Adams's Secretary of State.

Continued disagreement of the representatives of Great Britain and the United States resulted. Their failure to agree upon the provisions of the Convention of 1822—that matters under dispute be referred to arbitration made the work of this convention of little avail. Clay's offer of settlement was not favorably received in Great Britain. As to a basis of compromise, Clay said that the "total number of slaves on the definitive list was 3,601; that the entire value of all the property for which the indemnity was claimed including interest might be stated at $2,693,120." Realizing that this large sum would never be secured, Clay suggested that $1,151,800 might be used as the minimum in the negotiation. He used as a guide the fact that Parliament had appropriated 250,000 pounds to cover the awards of the commission. This sum, Mr. King observed also, was nearly the sum mentioned as a minimum by Clay in his instructions to him. Even with this information, the commissioners made little progress.

On the other hand, Mr. Vaughan, the British Envoy at Washington, said April 12, 1826, "that His Majesty's Government regretted to find themselves under the absolute impossibility of accepting the terms of compromise offered by the envoy from the United States in London." He did not admit, moreover, that the question of interest should be referred to arbitration, but maintained that the demand was unwarranted by the convention and unfounded by the Law Officers of the Crown.[76] In reply to his observation, Clay informed Vaughan of the fact that Great Britain's representatives had refused to refer many questions to arbitration and that if this refusal to cooperate in this regard should be upheld it would virtually be making him the final judge of every question of difference that arose in the joint commission.[77] This disagreement continued until 1825, when the commissioners met to collect and weigh evidence.

Soon thereafter, Albert Gallatin, who had been appointed Envoy of the United States to London, was authorized to treat with Canning on the oft-discussed question. During the first interview he discovered that, while there was a great reluctance to recede from the ground already taken by Jackson, there was also a disposition to settle that controversy.[78] Following the instructions given to King, Gallatin used the 250,000 pounds as the basis of settlement. This sum he was authorized to accept. He, however, did not make this offer known immediately but waited for the formal offer of $1,200,000 from the British Government; and in conformity with his instruction of a later date, Gallatin offered as an ultimatum an acceptance of $1,204,960, which the British Government reluctantly agreed to pay.[79]

On November 13, 1826, a convention to carry out this agreement was concluded. The amount specified above was to cover all claims under the award of the Emperor of Russia. It provided, moreover, that the money was to be paid in Washington, in the current money of the United States, in two installments; the first twenty days after the British Minister in the United States should have been officially notified of the ratifications of the convention, and the second August 1, 1827. In this way the convention of 1822 was annulled, save as to the two articles relating to the average value of slaves which had been carried into effect, and as to the third article as related to the definitive list which had also been carried out.[80] This ended the work of the board. After ratification had been exchanged the board adjourned, March 26, 1827.

This left one more matter to be disposed of, that of executing the provisions of the commission of 1826. In compliance with this Congress passed an act, March 2, 1827, to carry out this agreement.[81] A convention was thereby called to meet in Washington July 10th and proceed with the consideration of claims, "allowing such further time for the production of evidence as they should think just." As soon as the claims were validated and the principal amounts ascertained seventy-five per cent of the principal was paid with the explanation that when all claims were settled, the other twenty-five per cent would be paid, if the fund permitted it. If it did not, then the remainder would be distributed in proportion to the sums awarded. In these negotiations, Langdon Cheves and Henry Sewell, who had only recently represented the United States in London, together with James Pleasants of Virginia, were appointed commissioners. They considered not only the claims on the definitive list but also those deposited in the Department of State and which had not been previously adjusted.

The conflicting interests of payments and the inconclusive evidence which were presented made the work of this convention more difficult. The records were very poor and contained little of the information desired. For this reason many claims were denied; especially was this true in Maryland and Virginia.[82] Many of the claimants of other States nevertheless were compensated. Seventy-five per cent was granted them, the sum totalling $600,000 being paid. This condition of affairs caused a clash among the 1,100 claimants, 700 of whose petitions on the definitive list were examined. Many other claimants were seeking evidence to secure compensation. They were not successful, however, for Cheves opposed the admission of hearsay testimony as well as the testimony of slaves. Well informed as to the progress of the commission, Congress passed an act May 15, 1828,[83] specifying August 31st as the last day on which the commission would meet. Of that entire amount awarded $1,197,422.18 had been paid to the claimants. The remaining sum was "distributed and paid ratably," to all the claimants to whom compensation had been made. The work of the Convention of 1827 thus ended.

ARNETT G. LINDSAY

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This dissertation is the result of the researches of Mr. A. G. Lindsay under Dr. C. G. Woodson at Howard University during the academic year 1919-1920 and was submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in candidacy for the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. C. G. Woodson was the chairman of this committee.

The following sources were used in the preparation of this manuscript: American State Papers, Foreign Relations; American State Papers, Confidential Documents; American State Papers, Wait's Edition; Annals of Congress; Diary of John Quincy Adams, in his Memoirs; Diplomatic Correspondence; Force, American Archives; Journals of Congress; Journals of Continental Congress; McDonald's Source Book of American History; Niles Register; Treaties and Conventions, Edition 1889; United States Statutes at Large.

The following works were also consulted: John Adams, Works; Van Tyne, The American Revolution; American Historical Association Reports; Babcock, Rise of American Nationality; Benton, Naval History of England; Channing, History of the United States; Ford, Washington's Writings; Ford, Jefferson's Writings; Fiske, Critical Period; Gibb, Administrations of Washington and Adams; The Journal of Negro History; Morse, John Adams; Naval Chronicle of England; Ramsay, History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809; Sparks, Washington; Moore, International Arbitration; Moore, Digest of International Law; Wharton, Digest of International Law, Edition, 1887; Halleck, Elements of Law; Wheaton, Elements of Law, Edition, by Dana.

[2] Ramsay, History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809, Vol. I, pp. 474-475.

[3] American Historical Association, Vol. I, p. 273. F. A. Ogg, American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 304.

[4] Moore, International Arbitrations, p. 350.

[5] Van Tyne, American Revolution, p. 61; Force, American Archives, 4th Series, III, 1385.

[6] Proclamation—"Whereas the enemy have adopted a practice of enrolling Negroes among their troops, I do hereby give Notice that all Negroes taken in Arms or upon any military Duty shall be purchased for the public service at a stated price; the money to be paid to the captors. But I do most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim right over any Negroes the property of a Rebel who may take refuge with any part of this Army. And I do promise to every Negro who shall desert the Rebel Standard full Security to follow within the Lines any occupation which he may think proper." Given under my Hand at Headquarters, Phillipsburg, the 30th day of June, 1799.

H. CLINTON. By his Excellency's Commander JOHN SMITH, Sec.

Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26; Van Tyne, American Revolution.

[7] Force, American Archives, I, 486, Fifth Series.

[8] Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26.

[9] Ramsay, History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809, I, 474.

[10] Moore's Historical Notes, 14; Journal of Negro History, Vol. I, p. 117.

[11] Jefferson's Works, Vol. II, p. 426.

[12] Sparks, Washington's Works, III, 218.

[13] Channing's History of the United States, Vol. III, pp. 348-369.

[14] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, p. 273.

[15] Article 7, Treaty of Paris.—"There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, and from every port, place and harbour within the same; leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds and papers belonging to any of the said states or their citizens which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong."

McDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History, p. 208.

[16] American Historical Association Report, 1874, p. 421. Waits, American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 279.

[17] Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, pp. 411-422.

[18] Sparks, Washington, Vol. VIII, Appendix, p. 544.

[19] Washington to Daniel Parker in Ford's Washington's Writing, X, 246-247.

[20] Ford's Edition of Jefferson's Writings, p. 127.

[21] Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, p. 417.

[22] Ford, Washington's Writings, X, 241-243.

[23] Journal of Negro History, II, 418.

[24] Diplomatic Correspondence, Vol. XI, p. 335.

[25] Ford, Washington's Writings, X, 241-243.

[26] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, I, p. 190.

[27] Ibid., I, p. 191.

[28] Ibid., I, pp. 188-192.

[29] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 188-192.

[30] Blank certificate—New York, April 23, 1783.

This is to certify to whomsoever it may concern that the bearer hereof ........... a Negro restored to the British Lines in consequence of the proclamation of Sir William Howe and Sir Henry Clinton, late Commanders-in-chief in America; and that the said Negro has hereby his excellency's Sir Guy Carleton's permission to go to Nova Scotia or wherever else .......... may think proper.

By order of BRIGADIER GEN. BUCK. E. WILLIAMS, Major of Brigade.

[31] American State Papers, Vol. I, pp. 190-192.

[32] McDonald's Source Book of American History, p. 208.

[33] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, p. 276.

[34] Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, p. 970.

[35] Report of the American Historical Association, pp. 413-444; Diplomatic Correspondence 1783-1789 (3 Vol. ed.), II, 340.

[36] Morse, John Adams, p. 235.

[37] Adams' Works, Vol. VIII, p. 303.

[38] American Historical Association Report, 1894, p. 422. McLaughlin. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, p. 122.

[39] American Historical Association Report, 1894, p. 422.

[40] American State Papers, Confidential Documents, Vol. X, p. 80.

[41] American State Papers, Confidential Documents, Vol. X, p. 85.

[42] McLaughlin, Western Posts and British Debts, p. 423 in American Historical Association Report, 1894.

[43] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 470-472.

[44] Jay to Randolph, American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 485.

[45] American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 485.

[46] Ibid., p. 486.

[47] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, pp. 273-298.

[48] American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 501.

[49] Ibid., p. 509.

[50] American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, pp. 273-298.

[51] Annals of Congress—4th Session, 1795-96, p. 1006.

[52] Halleck, Elements of Law, p. 358.

[53] Ibid., p. 359.

[54] Wheaton's Edition by Dana, page 441.

[55] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. II, p. 46.

[56] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. II, p. 48.

[57] Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. V, page 372.

[58] Ibid., page 375.

[59] Ibid., pp. 375-376.

[60] American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. IV., p. 106.

[61] This proclamation was:

"Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view of entering his Majesty's service, or of being received as Free Settlers in some of his Majesty's colonies

"This is therefore to give notice

"That all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the United States will with their families be received on board his Majesty's ships or vessels of war or at the military ports that may be established upon or near the coast of the U.S. where they will have their choice of either entering his Majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as Free Settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies where they will meet all due encouragement.

"Given under my hand at Bermuda this 2nd day of April, 1814.

"By Command of VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM BALHETCHET "ALEX. COCHRANE."

Niles Register, Vol. VI, p. 242.

[62] Article I, Treaty of Ghent:

"There shall be a firm and universal peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this treaty shall have been ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever taken by either party from the other during the war or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public nature, or belonging to private persons which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of the officers of either party, shall be as far as may be practicable forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands on the Bay of Passama-Quoddy as are claimed by both parties shall remain in the possession of the party in whose occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting the title to the said islands shall have been made in conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the islands and territories claimed by both parties, shall in any manner whatever be construed to effect the right of either...."

[63] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. III, p. 750.

[64] Ibid., Vol. III, page 751.

[65] Moore's International Arbitration, page 350.

[66] Naval Chronicle, Vol. XXIV, page 213.

[67] Moore's International Arbitration, p. 352.

[68] American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 105.

[69] Ibid., p. 108.

[70] American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 126.

[71] Moore's International Arbitration, p. 363.

[72] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. V, p. 214.

[73] Maryland, 714; Va., 1721; S.C., 10; Ga., 833; La., 259; Miss., 22; Del., 2; Ala., 18; D. C., 3—page 801, Vol. V, American State Papers.

[74] Moore, International Arbitration, p. 377.

[75] Ibid., p. 377.

[76] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume VI, page 344; 746.

[77] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 746.

[78] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, p. 348.

[79] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 352.

[80] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 372.

[81] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 339

[82] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, page 855.

[83] Four Statutes at Large, page 269.



THE NEGRO IN POLITICS[1]

A treatise on the Negro in politics since the emancipation of the race may be divided into three periods; that of the Reconstruction, when the Negroes in connection with the interlopers and sympathetic whites controlled the Southern States, the one of repression following the restoration of the radical whites to power, and the new day when the Negro counts as a figure in politics as a result of his worth in the community and his ability to render the parties and the government valuable service.

While the echoes of the Civil War were dying away, the South attempted to reduce the Negro to a position of peonage by the passage of the black codes. Many northern men led by Sumner and Stevens, who at first tried to secure the cooperation of the best whites, became indignant because of this attitude of the South and were reduced to the necessity of forcing Negro suffrage upon the South at the point of the bayonet, believing that the only way to insure the future welfare of the Negro was to safeguard it by giving him the ballot. Under the protection of these military governments, the Negroes and certain more or less fortunate whites gained political control. The southern white men, weary and disgusted because of the outcome of their attempts at secession, maintained an attitude of sullenness and indifference toward the new regime and accordingly offered at first very little opposition to the Negro control of politics. The Negroes, upon their securing the right of suffrage, however, turned at once to their former masters for political leadership,[2] but the majority of these southern gentlemen refused to "lower their dignity" by political association with the Negroes. The few southern gentlemen who did affiliate with the Negroes were dubbed "scalawags" by their former friends and cast out of southern society.

The Negroes were then forced, because of the lack of cooperation on the part of the southern whites, to accept the leadership of certain northern men who came South for the sole purpose of personal gain and exploitation. These men were in some cases of an extremely low order and were in a large measure responsible for the corruption of Reconstruction days. They were contemptuously called "carpetbaggers" by the southern whites because they were so poor that they could carry all of their possessions in a carpet bag. Some of these white men were conscientious, however, and served these States honorably. Most Negroes, therefore, were under the leadership of these three elements: southern men who were regarded by their neighbors as men of the lowest possible order, unscrupulous adventurers from the North, and some intelligent members of their own race like B. K. Bruce, John R. Lynch, R. B. Elliot, and John M. Langston. This ill-assorted group of politicians reconstructed the Southern States.

The wisdom of this policy has been widely questioned. From the point of view of most white men studying Reconstruction history this effort to make the Negro a factor in politics was a failure, the elimination of the Negro from politics was just, and the rise of the Negro to political power even today is viewed with alarm. The opinions of the biased historians in this field will be interesting. Several writers refer to the Negro carpet bag movement as an effort to found commonwealths upon the votes of an ignorant Negro electorate, as working an injustice both to the whites and the blacks in that it made the South solidly democratic.[3] J. G. de R. Hamilton, exaggerating the actual basis of Reconstruction in the southern commonwealths, which were never fully controlled by the Negroes, speaks of the work as having left as a legacy "a protest against anything that might threaten a repetition of the past, when selfish politicians, backed up by the Federal Government, for party purposes, attempted to Africanize the State and deprive the people through misrule and oppression of most that life held dear."[4] John W. Burgess calls the effort an "extravagant humanitarianism which had developed in the minds of the Reconstruction leaders to the point of justifying, not only the political equality of the races but the political superiority at least in loyalty to the Union, the constitution and republican government, of the uncivilized Negroes of the South."[5] Burgess sees justice in subjecting the inferior to the superior class but none in subjecting the superior to the inferior.

Of these radical utterances historians need take but little notice. They are of value here for the reason that they show the lack of scientific Reconstruction history. No intelligent man who lived through this stormy period or who has read documents bearing on its history will contend that these commonwealths were Africanized merely because the Negroes along with the formerly disfranchised and ignorant poor whites were given the right of suffrage. It will be difficult to prove that the majority of poor whites in the South were at this time sufficiently intelligent and experienced in statecraft to give those commonwealths a much better government than that administered by the Negroes and "Carpet baggers"; for the South had been ruled by few aristocratic families, most of whom because of participation in the Civil War, could not on the cessation of hostilities be given the reins of government. A few who had not had any such connection with the Confederacy haughtily refused to cooperate with the Negroes in the reconstruction of these governments, although they were persistently invited by the Negroes who were thus advised by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, who showed foresight in trying to secure the cooperation of the best white element in the South.[6] These statesmen, however, are generally slandered by uninformed writers who contend that Sumner and Stevens did not thus proceed. The Negroes not only sought the leadership of the whites but showed unusual humaneness toward their poverty-stricken former masters by passing, as they did in South Carolina, stay laws to postpone the payment of their many war debts secured by mortgages on their property.

Statistics show, moreover, that with the exception of South Carolina and Mississippi, no State and not even any department of a State government was ever dominated altogether by Negroes. The Negroes never wanted and never had complete control in the Southern States.[7] The most important offices were generally held by white men. Only two Negroes ever served in the United States Senate, Hiram R. Revells and B. K. Bruce; and only twenty ever became Representatives in the House: and all of these did not serve at the same time, although some of them were elected for more than one term.

The charge that the men who were elected to office by the Negroes were always of the most debased and degenerate type is untrue. Because of the refusal of the southern aristocracy to cooperate with them, however, the Negroes were forced to elect such men as they were able to secure. Numerous promising and respectable whites who were elected to office by the Negroes, became corrupt and unprincipled on account of the treatment tendered them by the aristocratic whites. From among the Negroes themselves, the very best men available were chosen to hold offices. Among these were former slaves who had been made trustworthy servants of their masters and free Negroes who had received some education. Some of these Negroes served in their official capacity with honor and credit. A number of them were also respected by certain fairminded southern whites.[8]

Numerous examples of the high regard which the whites of certain communities had for the Negro leaders can be cited. Samuel J. Lee, of Charleston, South Carolina, was considered by his white contemporaries as one of the best criminal lawyers which the State had produced. At his death all local courts were declared adjourned and the entire city paid him homage. The late Bishop Isaac Clinton served, as Treasurer of Orangeburg, South Carolina, for eight years. Like Mr. Lee, he was held in high esteem by his white neighbors and upon the occasion of his funeral, the business of the community was suspended as a mark of respect to his memory. In certain communities, as in South Carolina, some Negroes were retained as office holders for a number of years after the supremacy of the Democratic party was assured. In Georgetown, South Carolina, Mr. George Harriot was Superintendent of Education for the county for years under the Democratic party. Beaufort, South Carolina, retained Negroes as sheriffs and school officials until a few years ago.[9]

J. T. White, Commissioner of Public Works and Internal Improvements in the State of Arkansas; M. W. Gibbs, Municipal judge in Little Rock, and J. C. Corbin, State Superintendent of Schools in the same State, had records equally as creditable. The same may be said of F. L. Cardoza, State Treasurer of South Carolina, Richard T. Greener, a professor in the University of that commonwealth, Oscar Dunn, Lieutenant-Governor of Louisiana and P.B.S. Pinchback, Acting Governor of that State.[10] The record of Dubuclet, according to Dr. Woodson, should receive special mention. In contradistinction to the rule of stealing from the public treasury, this man who served as Treasurer of the State of Louisiana even after the other departments of the government had been taken from the Negroes, in as much as the term of service of the Treasurer was six years rather than four, was investigated with a view to finding out some act of misuse of the public funds that he might be impeached and thrown out of office. The committee, of which E.D. White, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was chairman, reported after much deliberation that Dubuclet's funds had been honestly handled and that there were no grounds on which proceedings against him could be instituted.[11]

Despite the above mentioned instances of commendable Negro officials, however, the majority of the Negro functionaries were incompetent and as a result these governments could but collapse. The charge of corruption laid at the door of the Negro carpetbagger governments is to a large extent true. The corruption resulted largely from the work of the interlopers from the North and the "scalawags," using the Negroes to reach their own personal ends. In some of this corruption, however, the Negro was an apt scholar and freely participated. The Negroes were not as a whole prepared for the political privileges which were vouchsafed to them and they were to a large extent under the wrong sort of leadership. It is equally true, however, that governments were corrupt throughout the United States at this period. The Reconstruction period was one of corruption and if the Negro governments were of a lower order than a few others, they were not far out of accord with the times. The white people, who assumed control of the government on overthrowing the Reconstruction regime, instituted in several States a rule of corruption surpassing even that of their predecessors. Coming back into office like hungry persons who had been exposed to the cold atmosphere of an exile, the radical whites filled their purses from the coffers of the public treasury and defaulted to the amount of thousands of dollars which the tax payers have had to replace in the years thereafter.[12] The disgraces of Reconstruction, therefore, have been exaggeratingly flaunted by the South for the same purpose that it proclaims the widespread false charge of rape of the present day to justify the persecution of the Negro for being "unusually criminal."

The Negro was finally driven from southern politics through violence and fraud. The chief agent of the southern whites in accomplishing this was a secret organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. This organized mob killed off or drove the leading "Carpetbaggers" out of the South and intimidated the Negroes into submission by perpetrating numerous outrages upon them. After the whites regained control of the government, through their agents of terror the political ascendancy of the Negro was at end. The unscrupulous northern friends of the Negro having discovered that they could no longer successfully exploit them, therefore, abandoned them in the midst of their calamity. The whites proceeded to solidify the Democratic party and to eliminate the Negro entirely from politics in the South.

Politically, however, Reconstruction was in several respects a success. In the first place, the reconstructed governments were democratic, lifting a standard that the backward commonwealths of the South must still struggle for years to reach. In this social upheaval the poor white man was politically emancipated by receiving the boon of suffrage theretofore restricted to persons owning property and given a free and open door to office holding, which, under the old regime had been restricted to the few aristocrats dominating the country and State governments. These Negroes gave the South its improved judicial system and did their work so well in framing some of the constitutions that many of them with the exception of the clauses antagonistic to the Negro remained about as they were for many years. Although the Democrats got control of the State in 1877, the constitution of South Carolina of 1868 was not changed materially until 1893.

The Negro as a factor in reconstruction, moreover, instituted education at the expense of the public. Through the establishment of public schools with well equipped buildings and prepared teachers they removed from that system the stigma formerly attached to persons[13] educating their children at public expense. They, therefore, made of education a foundation upon which real democracy must build. It is only short sightedness on the part of writers to infer that because the Negro was in a few years thereafter deprived of the ballot that the good work which was done during the years that they were permitted to participate in the affairs of these States could be so easily overthrown, especially so when this progressive part of the program of the reconstructed governments which the restored whites at first abandoned has later been taken up and carried out.

Although weakened by the reaction of the North against the methods employed by politicians in maintaining the reconstructed governments at the South, which moved President Hayes to withdraw the troops from that area, the Negroes were still of some concern to the Republicans. To retain their support the Republicans often spoke of foisting upon the South the Force Bill to guarantee fair elections but rather abandoned the Negro to the fate of working out his own salvation with his oppressors. In all of the campaigns up to 1888 there was the usual waving of the "bloody shirt" to array the Negro against the South and of urging the Negro to vote the Republican ticket to pay the debt he owed the party for his freedom, hypocritically threatening also to undo many of the things which had been done to the Negro since Reconstruction. There was no sincerity in these vote-getting declarations, however, and the Negro in the South remained politically doomed.

Nothing will better bring out this treatment of the Negro by the Republican party than a study of the consideration given the race in the various platforms of that party following the Civil war. The Republicans in the convention of 1868 declared themselves in sympathy with all oppressed peoples struggling for their rights and recognized the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence as a true foundation of democratic government. That same year, however, the Democratic party recognized the question of slavery and secession as having been settled but denounced Negro supremacy.[14]

In 1872 the platform of the Republican party was somewhat more outspoken. It carried a reference to the suppression of the rebellion, the emancipation of four million slaves, the grant of equal citizenship and the establishment of universal suffrage. It said, moreover, that "neither law nor its administration should attempt any discrimination in respect to citizens by reason of race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.[15] The Liberal Republicans, rallying in a different quarter that year, declared in their platform their belief in the equality of all men before the law and the duty of the government in all its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all of whatever nativity, race, color or persuasion, religious or political. The Liberal Republicans pledged themselves to maintain the union of States, emancipation, and enfranchisement and to oppose any reopening of the questions settled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution. They advocated the removal of the disabilities of Confederates, the establishment of civil government at the South, universal amnesty, and impartial suffrage.[16]

In 1876 the Negro was given further mention by the various parties. The Prohibitionists took the lead in the declaration for equal suffrage and eligibility to office without distinction of race, religious creed, property or sex.[17] The Republicans referred in their platform to the permanent restoration of the southern section to the Union and the complete protection of all citizens in the free enjoyment of all their rights as an issue to which the Republican party stood sacredly pledged. "The power to provide for the enforcement of the principles embodied by the recent constitutional amendments," continues the platform, "is vested by those amendments in the Congress of the United States, and we declare it to be a solemn obligation of the legislative and executive departments of government to put into immediate and vigorous exercise all their constitutional powers for removing any just cause of discontent on the part of any class, and for securing to every American citizen complete liberty and exact equality in the exercise of all civil, political, and public rights. To this end we imperatively demand a congress and a chief executive whose courage and fidelity to these duties are placed beyond dispute or recall."[18]

The National Democratic platform of that year, however, spoke for the democracy of the whole country and declared its faith in the permanence of the Federal Union, and devotion to the Constitution of the United States with its amendments universally accepted as a final settlement of the controversies that engendered the Civil War; but took a bold stand for reform as necessary to rebuild and establish in the hearts of the whole people of the Union eleven years ago happily rescued from the danger of a secession of States but now to be severed from a corrupt centralism which after inflicting upon ten States the rapacity of carpet bag tyrannies, had "honey-combed the offices of the Federal government itself with the contagion of misrule and locked fast the prosperity of an industrious people in the paralysis of hard times."[19]

In 1880 The Republican party made no particular mention of the grievances of the Negroes but recited its record in suppressing the rebellion, reconstructing the Union with freedom instead of slavery as its corner stone, the transformation of four million human beings from the likeness of things to the rank of citizens and removing Congress from the infamous work of hunting fugitive slaves and charging it to see that slavery shall not exist. It declared, moreover, that the South must be divided by the peaceful agencies of the ballot that all opinions might there find free expression and to this end the honest voter must be protected against terrorism, violence or fraud.[20]

In 1884 there was no specific reference to the Negro unless it be found in the statement that the Republican party had gained its strength by "quick and faithful response to the demands of the people for the freedom and equality of all men; for a united nation, assuring the rights of all citizens."[21] The platform of the Democratic party carried a declaration equally as emphatic in that it said, "the preservation of personal rights; the equality of all citizens before the law; the reserved rights of the States and the supremacy of the Federal government within the limits of the constitution will ever form the true basis of our liberties." It further said; "Asserting the equality of all men before the law, we hold that it is the duty of the government, in its dealings with the people, to mete out equal and exact justice to all citizens, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political."[22]

Giving some impetus to the movement for woman suffrage which the Republicans had by various platforms theretofore encouraged, the Prohibitionists carried in their platform in 1888 the declaration that the right of suffrage rests on no mere circumstance of race, color, sex or nationality and that "where, from any cause, it has been held from citizens who are of suitable age and mentally and morally qualified for the exercise of an intelligent ballot, it should be restored by the people through the legislature of the several States, on such basis as they may deem wise.[23]

To protect the Negroes in their political rights, however, the Federal Government as administered by the Republican party during these years furnished little encouragement, through its much talked of enforcement of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Bills providing for adequate military protection of the Negroes at the polls were enacted but the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the Federal Government did not possess the authority to restrain mobs from interfering with elections. The Supreme Court conceded that the Fifteenth Amendment forbade the denial of the right to vote by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but easily conceded that no violation of this amendment could occur when a hostile mob excluded Negroes from the polls. Yet although the mob thus quickly triumphed in undoing the democratic reforms of Reconstruction, the South hoped thereafter to reach the same end by imposing on the Negroes a legal disability; for the Fifteenth Amendment did not assert the right of the Negro to vote. It merely said that suffrage could not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As the Negro was generally poor and in the midst of the economic depression of the South too often had to wander from place to place to seek a livelihood, he could be easily eliminated by the poll tax, the resident requirement, and educational tests.

Thus it happened. Mississippi under its new constitution in 1890 eliminated the Negro and in the next twenty years all of the cotton States except Florida and Texas followed its example. Arkansas based the franchise on a one year poll tax in 1893; South Carolina required residence, enrollment, and poll tax in 1895; Delaware adopted an educational test in 1897, Louisiana resorted to the same test and poll tax in 1898 and North Carolina fell in line in 1900. Alabama established the residence, registry and poll tax requirement in 1901; and Virginia, Georgia and Oklahoma based suffrage on property, literacy or poll tax in 1902, 1908, and 1910 respectively. As these measures bore heavily also upon certain ignorant whites they were relieved of this disability by the "Grandfather Clause" specifying that the persons deprived by these regulations of the right to vote might be placed upon the roll of voters if they had exercised this privilege before the year 1867 or were descended from such voters. This was essentially the clause adopted in North Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and Georgia.[24] The Supreme Court, however, has declared the "Grandfather Clause" a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.

During the campaigns after 1888 the Republican party made no special mention of the Negro as it had formerly and did not show any inclination to shoulder the grievances of the race. At this time the Republicans were face to face with a large element of political reformers led by the Democrats who, prior to the campaign of 1884 had carried Pennsylvania and New York and made such other inroads in northern strongholds as to convince the leaders of the Republican party that the Negro issue and the "bloody shirt" would no longer suffice to hold those voters who had been won by the intelligent appeal for deliverance from the corrupt practices in the local and national governments. This movement culminated in the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884 and in his election the second time in 1892.

To attach Negroes to their cause, to be sure, the Republicans were very deferential to them in the national conventions, where they were of much service in naming candidates for the national ticket although they could not vote in the South and were not sufficiently numerous in the North to be a large factor at the polls. At the convention in 1884, the national committee had named ex-Senator Powell Clayton of Arkansas as temporary chairman of the convention, an arrangement which was supposed to be in the interest of Mr. Blaine. The young men of the party led by Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt effected the nomination from the floor of John R. Lynch, a distinguished man of color of Mississippi, and the vote by delegates elected him to the position by 431 to 387 given to Mr. Clayton.[25] Frederick Douglass received one vote for the nomination for President in 1888.[26]

After the complete undoing of the Reconstruction the Negroes were at a loss politically. A number of the foremost Negro politicians, among whom were Frederick Douglass, John R. Lynch, B. K. Bruce, John M. Langston, John C. Dancy, and a few others, were given positions in the service of the Federal Government of high sounding titles and little importance, such as Registrar of the Treasury, Recorder of Deeds, Auditor of the Navy and diplomatic posts in Negro countries. A greater number of Negroes found an outlet in the civil service. Even up until the present day it is an ardent desire of the Negro to obtain a civil service appointment. In these positions the Negroes were able to earn a comparatively easy living but were not able to do anything constructive for the uplift of their people.

The Negroes, however, had continued to support the Republican party to the full extent of their strength. But it soon became clear that the support of Negro leaders was little more than an effort directed toward obtaining a few unimportant offices. The Republicans, having long since discovered that the Negro vote of most communities can be changed neither to harm nor to help them, have consequently ceased to consider the danger of losing their support of great import. The Democratic party, moreover, has continued almost unswervingly its attitude of aloofness from the Negro. The onesidedness of the Negro vote has been declared by some Negroes to be the cause of its non-importance. With this political view some few of them have allied themselves with the Democratic party, feeling that the division of the Negro's vote may work an improvement in his political status. Because of ex-President Taft's attitude of indifference toward the Negroes a number of the Negro politicians supported Roosevelt's party in 1912 and many voted for Wilson in 1916.

With the Negro in this weak position, however, there developed in the South a movement to remove from the Republican party the stigma of its connection with the Negro by eliminating the members of that race from the circles of control in the South. This movement has been generally known as a "Lily-Whiteism." For the last twenty-five years, therefore, there have come to the National Republican Conventions from the various Southern States contesting delegations, one white and the other black, each one claiming to be the properly accredited representative of the Republican party in the State concerned. In some States the "Lily-Whites" have actually held conventions from which the Negroes were excluded or which they were not permitted to attend. Because of the difficulty of making good their claim as properly accredited delegates they have abandoned this method for the subterfuge of holding their conventions in hotels or other exclusive places which Negroes, because of the social proscription of the race, are prohibited from entering by an already well established unwritten law.

As a matter of fact the Republican party in such commonwealths no longer exists and these delegates whether white or black represent merely rotten boroughs. As they are of use, however, in selecting the candidate to be nominated for president, the administration has been very reluctant to interfere with the proposed reform in these quarters for the reason that such delegates are usually made up of persons appointed by the President of the United States to Federal positions in the South. As the President usually desires to be reelected and can control such a coterie, it has been very difficult to find one with the courage to give his influence in the direction of reform.

Early in the winter of the year when the president is to be nominated, persons supporting the administration usually visit the South laying plans for lining up these prospective delegates. Politicians interested in other candidates make similar tours through the South sometimes lavishly handling funds to the extent of buying up delegates. As the whites are in a much better position to secure the few Federal appointments allotted in the South, after the election, since the abandonment of the policy of appointing Negroes to these positions, the Negroes have usually exacted a much larger compensation for their services in the pre-convention struggle than whites have required, thus shamelessly disgracing themselves in the eyes of those who would expect the leaders of the race to play a more honorable role.

There are in certain sections of the South a number of men who devote all of their time to electing these delegates for service in these conventions and secure therefore adequate remuneration for a livelihood from administration to administration. The pliant Negro delegates at the convention in Chicago in 1908 and 1912 were unequal to the task of nominating a progressive candidate because of their machine like attachment to the candidacy of William Howard Taft, whom the American people would not accept. The Negro delegates, however, did much better in the convention of 1916 and still further improved by the time of the conventions of 1920, when it was impossible for any pre-convention arrangement or plan to be so carried out that any candidate could come to the convention saying that he had the Negroes to vote in any particular way. It is encouraging, moreover, to add that numbers of these delegates had received no funds from any quarter whatever, but along with white men promoting their party had contributed to the campaign funds and had paid their own expenses to the convention. They were, therefore, given a more dignified position in the management of the party affairs and were in many respects shown the same consideration as that given the white delegates, serving on various important committees and placed in strategic positions in the management of the campaign without regard to color.

In drawing to a close this discussion of the Negro in politics I wish to accentuate the fact that while the Negro is at present practically a political nonentity, he is yet potent, as is illustrated in various parts of the country. For example, at present there are two Negro councilmen in Chicago, two aldermen in New York, one assemblyman in New York, two councilmen in Baltimore, three Negro members in the West Virginia legislature, one in the California legislature, and one in the Indiana legislature. In several of the cities of the North there is such a large Negro population and so much appreciation among the Negroes of their political power that they are now launching a movement to nominate and elect members of their race to represent them in Congress. It is likely that this may soon be effected in Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia.

NORMAN P. ANDREWS

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This article was written under the direction of Dr. C. G. Woodson, under whom the writer prosecuted various courses in history during the year 1919-1920 at Howard University. The writer is indebted to him for valuable suggestions and many important facts which Dr. Woodson incorporated into the dissertation before publishing it. The writer was aided too by suggestions and facts obtained from Mr. W.T. Andrews, the editor of the Baltimore Herald, Professor Kelly Miller, and Mr. A. Phillips Randolph, of New York City.

[2] The Journal of Negro History, Vol. V, pp. 110-111.

[3] Eckenrode, Political History of Virginia during Reconstruction, pp. 127, 128, and Thompson, Reconstruction in Georgia, p. 400.

[4] Hamilton, Reconstruction in North Carolina, p. 607.

[5] Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 218.

[6] The Journal of Negro History, Vol. V, pp. 110-111.

[7] This statement is based on information obtained from numerous participants in the Reconstruction of the Southern States. Among these are John R. Lynch, Thomas E. Miller, T. T. Allain, and P. B. S. Pinchback.

[8] This is the testimony of white persons obtained by the writer.

[9] These facts were obtained through Mr. W. T. Andrews who lived in South Carolina.

[10] Simmons, Men of Mark, pp. 113, 829, 948, 1023; Woodson, A Century of Negro Migration, pp. 124-125.

[11] Report of Joint Committee to Investigate the Treasurer's Office, State of Louisiana, to the General Assembly, 1877, pp. 7-12. Majority Report; Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, pp. 77-78.

[12] Lynch, Facts of Reconstruction, ch. III. Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, p. 30.

[13] Garner, Reconstruction in Mississippi; Woodson, The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861, p. 17.

[14] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 260.

[15] Ibid., 291.

[16] Ibid., 287.

[17] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 310.

[18] Ibid., 316, 317, 318.

[19] Ibid., 322.

[20] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 356, 359.

[21] Ibid., 387.

[22] Ibid., 393, 396.

[23] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, 432.

[24] Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions; Paxson, The New Nation, p. 199.

[25] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, pp. 385-386; Paxson, The New Nation, p. 128.

[26] Stanwood, A History of Presidential Elections, p. 447.



HENRY BIBB, A COLONIZER

The underground railroad has been characterized by one historian of the Negro race as a "safety valve to the institution of slavery" since it tended to remove from the slave States those Negroes whose special abilities and leadership might have involved them in insurrections.[1] Their abilities frequently found an outlet in another land, under different conditions and in an entirely orderly way. Negroes who fled to Canada were given considerable material aid by the government of Canada and treated with sympathy by its people. Their own leaders, however, played no small part in the progress that they made in the British provinces and the names of Josiah Henson, Martin R. Delany and Henry Bibb stand for intelligence, energy and high qualities of service on behalf of the race in Canada.

Henry Bibb, born in slavery and without more than the barest rudiments of education, became prominent in the anti-slavery crusade, was actively associated with the Liberty Party in the State of Michigan during the forties and when the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850 drove thousands of his people out of the North and into Canada he set himself vigorously to the task of settling them on the land, providing schools and churches, and through his paper, The Voice of the Fugitive, exercised a good influence upon them at a time when their minds might be expected to be unsettled. Garrison and others who were active in the anti-slavery movement paid tribute to his services in that cause.

Bibb's career in slavery is told in his narrative published in New York in 1849.[2] He was born in Shelby county, Kentucky, in May, 1815, the son of a slave mother and a white father, and his childhood he sums up by saying that he was "educated in the school of adversity, whips and chains." Of his early life he writes:

"I was a wretched slave, compelled to work under the lash without wages and often without clothes enough to hide my nakedness. I have often worked without half enough to eat, both late and early, by day and by night. I have often laid my wearied limbs down at night to rest upon a dirt floor, or a bench without any covering at all, because I had nowhere else to rest my wearied body, after having worked hard all the day. I have been compelled in early life to go at the bidding of a tyrant through all kinds of weather, hot and cold, wet or dry, and without shoes frequently until the month of December, with my bare feet on the cold frosty ground, cracked open and bleeding as I walked."

From the slaveholder's standpoint he was a most unsatisfactory servant, being an incorrigible runaway, a blemish on his moral character which probably accounted for the frequency with which he changed owners, six separate sales being recorded at prices ranging from $850 to $1200. The plantation punishments had no effect upon him save to increase his desire for freedom.

As with many another slave the very evils of the system served a purpose in Bibb's life. Denied education of a normal kind he became observant and his mind was enlightened by what he saw and heard. "Among other good trades," he says, "I learned the art of running away to perfection. I made a regular business of it and never gave it up until I had broken the bonds of slavery and landed myself in Canada where I was regarded as a man and not a thing."

Ill treatment was the incentive to the first attempt of Bibb to secure his freedom. This was in 1835 and the next few years were occupied with repeated unsuccessful efforts to get away and to take his wife and child with him. He had heard of Canada and his thoughts ever turned in that direction. On several occasions his flights led him as far as the Ohio River, the boundary of freedom, but some force seemed always at hand to drag him back. At the end of 1837 he managed to reach Cincinnati and spent that winter at Perrysburg with a community of Negroes settled there. The next summer he risked his freedom in attempting to bring his wife North, was captured, lodged in jail at Louisville, and managed to escape within a few hours after being locked up. A year later he renewed the attempt, was again captured, and this time was sold, together with his wife, to a trader who dealt in the New Orleans market. It was in the fall of 1839 that the man and wife were exposed for sale in a slave yard on St. Joseph Street and in the narrative there is an interesting account of the trade in this southern city. Newly arrived blacks were taken before a city official who inspected their backs to see if they were scarred and also examined their limbs to see if they were sound. To determine their age the teeth were examined and the skin pinched on the back of the hand. In the case of old slaves the pucker would remain for some seconds. There was also rigorous examination as to mental capacity. Slaves who displayed unusual intelligence, who could read or write or who had been to Canada were not wanted. Bibb notes that practically every buyer asked him if he could read or write and if he had ever run away. Of the slave yard itself he writes:

"All classes of slaves were kept there for sale, to be sold in private or public—young or old, males or females, children or parents, husbands or wives. Every day, at ten o'clock, they were exposed for sale. They had to be in trim for showing themselves to the public for sale. Everyone's head had to be combed and their faces washed, and those who were inclined to look dark and rough were compelled to wash in greasy dish water in order to make them look slick and lively. When spectators would come in the yard the slaves were ordered out to form a line. They were made to stand up straight and look as sprightly as they could; and when they were asked a question they had to answer it as promptly as they could, and try to induce the spectator to buy them. If they failed to do this they were severely paddled after the spectators were gone. The object for using the paddle in the place of a lash was to conceal the marks which would be made by a flogging. And the object for flogging under such circumstances is to make the slave anxious to be sold."[3]

The Bibbs were eventually sold to a Red River planter with whom they had a most miserable existence. For attending without leave a religious meeting on a neighboring plantation Bibb was ordered to receive five hundred lashes. To avoid this he took his wife and child and they hid in a swamp. Dogs tracked them down and every slave on the plantation witnessed the punishment that was given. Shortly afterwards the planter sold Bibb to a party of southern sportsmen but refused to sell the wife whom Bibb never saw again. The new owners quickly resold him to an Indian from whom he managed to escape and successfully made his way through the Indian Territory, Missouri and Ohio to Michigan and Detroit.[4] He was never in the South again.

Bibb's arrival in Detroit came at what proved for him a most opportune time, since it gave scope for his abilities to be utilized in the anti-slavery cause, particularly in the State of Michigan. The Detroit Anti-Slavery Society had been formed in 1837 and by the end of 1840 there were similar societies all over the State. Michigan, at this time, was probably better organized and more united in sentiment than any other of the Northwestern States. It was the era of the Liberty Party whose platform "asserted the overmastering importance of the one question of the existence of slavery, and the necessity of bringing about a separation of the national government from all connection with the institution." This third party was facing in 1844 a crisis over the question of the annexation of Texas for which the South was a unit and on which the political organizations of the North were divided. Bibb had attended a convention of free colored people held in Detroit in 1843 and the next year he began to give addresses throughout the State in the interests of Liberty Party candidates, a full ticket for both Congress and the State legislature having been nominated. It was a bitter contest in which he engaged. The Whigs pointed out that they were standing out against the annexation of Texas, a slave empire in itself, and that votes for a third party would but pave the way for a Democratic victory. This is exactly what happened. In Michigan the Liberty Party polled six and a half per cent of the votes, but even this added to the Whig vote would not have brought victory.[5] Bibb continued to work for the Liberty Party during 1844 and 1845, going also into Ohio with Samuel Brooks and Amos Dresser. They were more than once mobbed and their meetings broken up by rowdies. Of their work Bibb writes:

"Our meetings were generally appointed in small log cabins, schoolhouses, among the farmers, which were sometimes crowded full; and where they had no horse teams it was often the case that there would be four or five ox teams come, loaded down with men, women and children to attend our meetings. The people were generally poor and in many places not able to give us a decent night's lodgings. We generally carried with us a few pounds of candles to light up the houses wherein we held our meetings after night; for in many places they had neither candles nor candlesticks. After meeting was out we have frequently gone three to eight miles to get lodgings, through the dark forest where there was scarcely any road for a wagon to run on. I have travelled for miles over swamps where the roads were covered with logs without any dirt over them, which has sometimes shook and jostled the wagon to pieces where we could find no shop or place to mend it. We would have to tie it up with bark, or take the lines to tie it with and lead the horse by the bridle. At other times we were in mud up to the hubs of the wheels."

Bibb found his real work when, with the passing of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, there began a trek of colored people out of the Northern States into Canada.[6] Before the end of 1850 several thousand of these people had crossed the border and the situation was one that called not only for the aid of generous Canadians but for all that leaders among their own people could do for them. It was Henry Bibb's belief that the future of the people of color in Canada depended upon getting them settled on the land and his mind turned to the possibilities of establishing a distinctly Negro colony on land that might be secured as a grant from the Canadian government or, if necessary, purchased from the government as had been done in the case of the Buxton settlement established by Rev. William King in what is now Southwestern Ontario. Bibb succeeded in organizing his colonization society, its object being "to assist the refugees from American slavery to obtain permanent homes and to promote their social, moral, physical and intellectual development." It was proposed that 50,000 acres of land should be purchased from the government at an estimated cost of about two dollars an acre, the purchase money to be derived partly from contributions and partly from the sale of the land. Each family settling was to receive 25 acres, five acres to be free of cost provided they cleared and cultivated it within three years from the time of occupation. The remaining twenty acres was to be paid for in nine annual installments. Only landless refugees were to receive grants, transfer except after fifteen years occupation was forbidden and all lands vacated by removal or extinction of families were to revert to the parent society. Money returned to the society was to be spent on schools, for payment of teachers and for the purchase of new land. The whole business of the organization was to be in the hands of a board of trustees.[7]

At the beginning of 1851 Bibb had established a little newspaper, published bi-monthly and known as The Voice of the Fugitive. In the issue of March 12, 1851, he raises the question as to what the fugitives stand most in need of and holds that charity is but a handicap to their progress and that they must work for their own support, preferably on the land. The recommendation of a recent convention at Sandwich is quoted to the effect that the refugees should go into agriculture, and that to this end an effort should be made to secure a grant of land from the Canadian government, this land to be disposed of in 25-acre plots. Bibb suggested that there should be at least 20,000 acres secured at once.

To aid in forwarding the plans Bibb enlisted the support of a number of Michigan people and at a meeting held in Detroit on May 21, 1851, the Refugee's Home Society was organized with the following officers: president, Deacon E. Fish, Birmingham; vice-president, Robert Garner; secretary, Rev. E. E. Kirkland, Colchester; assistant secretary, William Newman. It was decided that an effort should be made to secure 50,000 acres of land. New officers appear to have been elected almost immediately after the society had started operations, the new executives being as follows: president: J. Stone, Detroit; vice-president, A. L. Power, Farmington; secretary, E. P. Benham, Farmington; treasurer, Horace Hallock, Detroit.[8] The whole movement was heartily approved at a convention of colored people held at Sandwich on May 26, 1851. The Canada Land Company offered to sell large blocks of land to the Society at from two to four dollars an acre but no large purchases were immediately made. Instead, the society began a canvass for funds, sending out Charles C. Foote of Commerce and E. P. Benham of Farmington for this purpose. A letter from Foote in The Voice of the Fugitive of July 30, 1851, says "The plan seems popular and he looks forward to the day when the colored people will nestle in the mane of the British lion." In the latter part of 1851 a purchase of land was made from the Canada Company and a contract was entered into for further purchases as soon as the funds should be available.

At the meeting of the Society held in Farmington on January 29, 1852, the following officers were elected: president, Nathan Stone, Detroit; vice-president, A. L. Power, Farmington; treasurer, Horace Hallock, Detroit; recording secretary, E. P. Benham, Livonia; corresponding secretary, Mrs. Mary Bibb, Windsor; Executive William Lolason, Detroit; Colman Freeman, Windsor; Elisha Vanzant, Detroit; David Hotchkiss, Amherstburg; and Henry Bibb, Windsor, Vanzant and Bibb were appointed trustees, the latter reporting the purchase of 200 acres of land at three dollars an acre. It was decided to reserve ten acres for school purposes, to send out J. F. Dolbeare as agent to collect funds and to make Bibb's newspaper the official organ of the society.[10]

The second annual report of the Anti-Slavery Society of Canada (1853) reported that at that time the Refugee's Home Society had purchased 1328 acres of land of which 600 acres had been taken up by settlers. The scheme was considered a good one but it was emphasized that good management would be needed. The progress of the Elgin or Buxton settlement showed that success was possible.