Negroes sought redress in the courts and finally in the United States Supreme Court, the best case in evidence being that of Hodges v. United States.[73] In this case came a complaint from certain Negroes in Arkansas laboring in the service of an employer according to a contract. Because of their color certain criminals in that community conspired to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate them, resulting in the severance of their connection with this employer and the consequent economic loss resulting therefrom. The Negroes thus complaining brought this case to the United States Supreme Court contending that a remedy for this evil was to be found in the revised statutes of the United States Senate, Sections 1977, 1979, 5508, and 5510. These sections follow in the order of their importance:

Section 5508. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured, they shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than ten years, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to any office, or place of honor, profit or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Other statutes referred to but not so vital were:

Section 1977. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue the parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

Section 1978. All citizens of the United States shall have the same right in every State and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

Section 1979. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities, secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Section 5510. Every person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, subjects or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States or to different punishments, pains or penalties, on account of such inhabitants being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not more than one year, or by both.

The decision in this case was in substance that Congress cannot make it an offense against the United States for individuals to combine or conspire to prevent even by force, citizens of African descent, solely because of their race, from earning a living, although the right to earn one's living in all legal ways and to make lawful contracts in reference thereto is a vital point of freedom established by the Constitution. Section 5508 had been upheld in Ex Parte Yarborough,[74] and in the case of Logan v. the United States[75] the court referred to this section as having been upheld in Ex Parte Yarborough. In United States v. Reese, moreover,[76] Justice Waite said in 1875, speaking for the court, "The rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion shall provide. This may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected."

"The whole scope and effect of this series of decisions," continued the court, "was that, while certain fundamental rights recognized and declared but not granted or created, in some of the amendments to the Constitution are thereby guaranteed only against violation or abridgement by the United States, or by the States, as the case may be, and cannot, therefore, be affirmatively enforced by Congress against unlawful causes of individuals; yet that every right created by, arising under, or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States may be protected and enforced by Congress by such means and in such manner as Congress in the exercise of the correlative duty of protection, or of the legislative powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, may in its discretion deem most eligible and best adopted to attain the object." This doctrine was sustained also by the decision in the case of United States v. Waddell,[77] and Motes v. United States.[78] Here it was emphatically stated that Congress might pass any law necessary or proper for carrying out any power conferred upon it by the Constitution.

The court here, however, evaded the real question as before, dodging behind the doctrine that while a State or the United States could not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, individuals or groups of individuals may do so and Congress has no power to interfere in such matters since these come within the police power of the State. In other words, the government cannot discriminate against the Negro itself, but it can establish agencies with power to do it. It is not surprising that Justice Harlan dissented, feeling as he had on former occasions that this decision permitted the States and groups of individuals supposedly subject to the government of those States to fasten upon the Negro badges or incidents of slavery in violation of the civil rights guaranteed him by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. He believed that Congress had the right to pass any law to protect citizens in the enjoyment of any right granted him by Congress. The duty of the Federal government as Justice Harlan saw it was very clear in that the State had caused the race question to be injected therein and in such a case Congress always has power to act.

On the whole, however, the United States Supreme Court has not yet had the moral courage to face the issue in cases involving the constitutional rights of the Negro. Not a decision of that tribunal has yet set forth a straightforward opinion as to whether the States can enact one code of laws for the Negroes and another for the other elements of our population in spite of the fact that the Constitution of the United States prohibits such iniquitous legislation. In cases in which this question has been frankly put the court has wiggled out of it by some such declaration as that the case was improperly brought, that there were defects in the averments, or that the court lacked jurisdiction.

In the matter of jurisdiction the United States Supreme Court has been decidedly inconsistent. This tribunal at first followed the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Osborn v. United States Bank,[79] that "when a question to which the judicial power of the United States is extended by the Constitution forms an ingredient of the original cause it is in the power of Congress to give the Circuit Courts the jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved." Prior to the rise of the Negro to the status of so-called citizenship the court built upon this decision the prerogative of examining all judicial matters pertaining to the Federal Government until it made itself the sole arbiter in all important constitutional questions and became the bulwark of nationalism. After some reaction the court resumed that position in all of its decisions except those pertaining to the Negro; for in the recent commercial expansion of the country involving the litigation of unusually large property values, the United States Supreme Court has easily found grounds for jurisdiction where economic rights are concerned; but just as easily disclaims jurisdiction where human rights are involved in cases in which Negroes happen to be the complainants.

The fairminded man, the patriot of foresight, observes, therefore, with a feeling of disappointment this prostitution of an important department of the Federal Government to the use of the reactionary forces in the United States endeavoring to whittle away the essentials of the Constitution which guarantees to all persons in this country all the rights enjoyed under the most progressive democracy on earth. Since the Civil War the United States Supreme Court instead of performing the intended function of preserving the Constitution by democratic interpretation, has by its legislative decisions practically stricken therefrom so many of its liberal provisions and read into the Constitution so much caste and autocracy that discontent and radicalism have developed almost to the point of eruption.

C. G. WOODSON

FOOTNOTES:

[1] McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 416.

[2] Ibid., 416.

[3] Ibid., 416.

[4] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard, 399.

[5] 16 Peters, 539, 612.

[6] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard, 399.

[6a] 21 Howard, 506.

[7] 6 Howard, 344.

[8] 94 U.S., 113.

[9] 16 Wall., 678.

[10] This was held in Township of Queensburg v. Culver (19 Wall., 83), in Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott (19 Wall., 666), and in Massachusetts in Worcester v. Western R. R. Corporation (4 Met., 564).

[11] Storey on Bailments, Sec. 475-6, and Rex v. Ivens, 7 Carrington & Payne, 213; 32, E. C. L., 495.

[12] 16 Wall., 36.

[13] 100 U. S., 303.

[14] 100 U. S., 306.

[15] 103 U. S., 386.

[16] Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 346-7.

[17] 14 statutes, 27, Chapter 31.

[18] 16 statutes, 140, Chapter 114.

[19] 109 U. S., 1.

[20] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S., 318; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 339.

[21] 6 Cranch, 128.

[22] 99 U. S., 418.

[23] United States v. Reese, 92 U. S., 214; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S., 303.

[24] Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall., 418; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Washington, D. C., 371; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168; Slaughter-house cases, Ibid., 36.

[25] 92 U. S., 542.

[26] 95 U. S., 487.

[27] The Louisiana Act was:

Section—. All persons engaged within this State in the business of common carriers of passengers, shall have the right to refuse to admit any person to their railroad cars, street cars, steamboats or other water-crafts, stage coaches, omnibusses, or other vehicles, or to expel any person therefrom after admission, when such persons shall, on demand, refuse or neglect to pay the customary fare, or when such person shall be of infamous character or shall be guilty, after admission to the conveyance of the carrier, of gross, vulgar, or disorderly conduct, or who shall commit any act tending to injure the business of the carrier, prescribed for the management of his business, after such rules and regulations shall have been made known: Provided, said rules and regulations make no discrimination on account of race or color, and shall have the right to refuse any person admission to such conveyance where there is not room or suitable accommodation; and, except in cases above enumerated, all persons engaged in the business of common carriers of passengers are forbidden to refuse admission to their conveyance, or to expel therefrom any person whomsoever.

Section 4. For a violation of any provision of the first and second sections of this act, the party injured shall have right of action to recover any damage, exemplary as well as actual, which he may sustain, before any court of competent jurisdiction. Acts of 1869, page 77; Rev. Stat. 1870, page 93.

[28] Mr. Justice Clifford concurred in the judgment but went into details to justify the segregation whereas the opinion of the court merely tried to see whether the details conflicted with the power of Congress to regulate commerce.

[29] 118 W. S., 557.

[30] All of these are in 94 U. S.

[31] 133 U. S., 587.

[32] This was the law of Mississippi:

Sec. 1. "Be it enacted, That all railroads carrying passengers in this State (other than street railroads) shall provide equal, but separate accommodation for the white and colored races by providing two or more passenger cars for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger cars by a partition, so as to secure separate accommodations."

Sec. 2. That the conductors of such passenger trains shall have power and are hereby required to assign each passenger to the car or the compartment of a car (when it is divided by a partition) used for the race to which said passenger belongs; and that, should any passenger refuse to occupy the car to which he or she is assigned by such conductor, said conductor shall have the power to refuse to carry such passenger on his train and neither he nor the railroad company shall be liable for any damages in any event in this State.

Sec. 3. That all railroad companies that shall refuse or neglect within sixty days after the approval of this act to comply with the requirements of section one of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction, be fined not more than five hundred dollars; and any conductor that shall neglect to, or refuse to carry out the provisions of this act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than fifty dollars for each offense.

Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act be, and the same are hereby repealed, and this act to take effect and be in force from and after passage. Acts of 1888, p. 48.

[33] 133 U. S., 592.

[34] 163 U. S., 317.

[35] Ibid., 537.

[36] 169 U. S., 613, 645.

[37] 141 U. S., 61.

[38] In Pa. R. R. Co. v. Hughes (191 U. S., 489), Justice White says:

"In the absence of Congressional legislation upon the subject an act of the Alabama legislature to require locomotive engineers to be examined and licensed by a board to be appointed by the governor for that purpose was sustained in Smith v. Alabama" (124 U. S., 465).

[39] 179 U. S., 393.

[40] 133 U. S., 587.

[41] 163 U. S., 537.

[42] 179 U. S., 388, 391.

[43] 133 U. S., 588.

[44] 218 U. S., 71.

[45] 235 U. S., 151.

[46] U. S., 18, 1907 Revised Statutes, 1910, Section 860, et seq.

[47] 100 U. S., 303.

[48] Ibid., 313.

[49] 103 U. S., 370.

[50] 162 U. S., 565.

[51] 107 U. S., 110.

[52] 162 U. S., 592.

[53] 163 U. S., 101.

[54] 167 U. S., 442.

[55] 192 U. S., 226.

[56] 200 U. S., 316.

[57] 218 U. S., 161.

[58] Laws of South Carolina, 1902, page 1066, section 2.

[59] 100 U. S., 371.

[60] 110 U. S., 651.

[61] 127 U. S., 731.

[62] 179 U. S., 58.

[63] 185 U. S.

[64] 189 U. S., 475.

[65] 193 U. S., 146.

[66] The Constitution of Mississippi prescribing the qualifications for electors conferred upon the legislature the power to enact laws to carry those provisions into effect. Ability to read any section of the Constitution or to understand it when read was made a qualification necessary to a legal voter. Another provision made the qualifications for grand or petit jurors that they should be able to read and write. Upon the complaint of Negroes thus disabled the court held that these provisions do not on their face discriminate between white and Negro races and do not amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It had not been shown that their actual administration was evil, but that only evil was possible under them.

In Washington County, Mississippi, Williams had been indicted for murder by a grand jury composed of white men altogether. He moved that the indictment be quashed because the law by which the grand jury was established was unconstitutional. (Williams v. Mississippi.)

[67] 193 U. S., 621.

[68] 238 U. S., 347.

[69] Ibid., 368.

[70] Ibid., 763.

[71] 175 U. S., 528.

[72] 120 U. S., 102.

[73] 202 U. S., 1.

[74] 110 U. S., 651.

[75] 144 U. S., 236, 286, 293.

[76] 92 U. S., 214, 217.

[77] 110 U. S., 651.

[78] 178 U. S., 458, 462.

[79] 9 Wheaton, 738.



REMY OLLIER, MAURITIAN JOURNALIST AND PATRIOT[1]

It is of interest to the Negro to know the patriots of the race who have blazed the path of social progress in the various lands in which their lots have been cast. Not to all men is it given to be great as the world counts greatness. Each of us, however, may have a task which, if well done, may leave its impress upon the life of the community in which we live. These, although obscure, efforts of the talented and persevering are the monuments which silently mark the progress of the race. Remy Ollier was one of these obscure personalities; but yet, a man whose career made such contributions to the life of Mauritius that he is regarded by its people as one of the great figures in its political history. He was an educator, a journalist, a patriot, and in some respects a liberator of his people.

Mauritius is an island under British control situated in the Indian Ocean. It is 550 miles east of Madagascar, which lies off the east coast of Africa. Under the control of the French, it was known as Ile de France. It is mountainous in character and its scenery is most beautiful and picturesque. Its inhabitants may be divided into two main divisions: Europeans, chiefly French and British; and African and Asiatic peoples. French appears to be more commonly spoken than English, which accounts for the fact that the writings of Remy Ollier were in French.

The island was discovered by the Portuguese navigator, Mascarenhas in 1505. Until the sixteenth century the island remained under the control of Portugal. In 1598, the Dutch seized it and named it "Mauritius" in honor of its stadholder, Count Maurice of Nassau. The Dutch built a fort there, introduced slaves and convicts, but they made no permanent settlements and, in 1710, it was abandoned. For a short time the island passed into the hands of the French East India Company, and later it became a crown colony. During the colonial wars between France and Great Britain, Mauritius was a source of much conflict. It was finally captured by the British in 1810; and by the Treaty of Paris in 1814, the British were definitely granted control of the island. Great Britain agreed, however, that the inhabitants should retain their own laws, customs, religion and language, all of which were of French origin.

In 1833 slavery was abolished in the British possessions. The Reformed Parliament forced by the denunciation of antislavery orators led by William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and Granville Sharp, enacted a bill providing that Negro slavery should gradually cease in the colonies, and that a compensation of L20,000,000 should be paid to the slaveholders. There were then enacted laws removing proscription and the Negroes were supposed to enjoy the same political rights as the whites; but the latter sought to make themselves the dominant element in Mauritius. In 1834 there were about 66,000 Negroes on the island, which ten years later had a population of 158,462.[2] Indian coolies were brought in to take the place of Negro slaves and many evils attended their introduction. The situation was then as it was later in the United States when the adjustment of freedmen to their new life was accompanied by painful experiences on the part of both freedmen and their former masters. The planters resented the presence of the freedmen and as far as possible their privileges were curtailed.[3] Militant agitators arose then among the Negroes demanding justice for the oppressed. Among these leaders thus promoting the march of the Negro population of Mauritius toward freedom were Adrien d'Epinay, whose prominence is attested by a monument to be erected in his memory, and Remy Ollier, who still lives in the hearts of his countrymen.

Remy Ollier was born at Grand Port on the island of Mauritius, October 16, 1816, six years after the conquest of the island by the English. He was the fourth child of Benoit Ollier, an artillery officer. His mother, J. Guillemeau, was a daughter of Dr. Guillemeau, a physician, and formerly a member of the Legislative Council of the island. When eight years of age, Ollier was sent to a private school taught by Captain Rault, a seaman who had served under Louis XVI. This work was supplemented by lessons every Saturday under the Reverend Father Rock, who was impressed with the boy's ability, and with the consent of his parents taught him the elements of English and Latin. Allowed to use the library of Mr. Rault, Ollier early became acquainted with the best literature. It is said that he had a very retentive memory and that he could repeat and write at will long passages from his favorite authors.

About 1832, an unexpected reverse in fortune reduced Ollier's father to abject poverty, and he died of a broken heart. Ollier, now scarcely sixteen, went to work as a clerk in a merchant's office; but his mother, thinking that his future in a clerkship was limited, secured him a place as an apprentice to a harness-maker. With a book in one hand and an awl in the other, Ollier prepared himself for his future career. Opportunities in the larger fields of life were closed to the Negro population as stated in the words of Ollier "that young men of the present generation could but become handicraftsmen. This is the only field open to us. But we must try to educate ourselves by all means; perseverance is the only key that opens the door to success. At whatever social rank man may be placed, education alone may confer upon him a superiority."

In 1833 there occurred an incident which proved to be a turning point in his life. Several members of the white population were charged with forming a conspiracy against British rule in the island. Rumor had it further that they had gathered arms and ammunition, that they expected to attack the British officials and restore the island to France. They were imprisoned and were denied the writ of habeas corpus. Young Ollier had developed a keen interest in politics and asked the permission of his employer to pay the men a visit. Later, he spent many of his working hours at the court trials to which he seemed irresistibly drawn. His employer wrote his mother stating that her son would never make a harness-maker; for he spent most of his time either in study when in the shop or at the courts when he should have been at work. His mother, whom he always loved, burned his books and reprimanded him for his conduct. For some time, he remained at the harness shop, but finally gave up the work in order to pursue the study he desired. Through his former friend, Mr. Rault, he obtained many books to replace the ones which he had lost by the hasty action of his mother.

By tutoring the children in the village of Petite Riviere and in the town of Port Louis, he managed to obtain a living. In 1837, he opened a private school in St. George street. It appears that this venture was not successful, for he soon accepted a position in a "boarding school conducted by Mr. Louis Barthelemy Raynaud, a white Mauritian Professor who did not scruple to teach the young generations of the white as well as of the colored population." When not engaged in tutoring at this school and the neighboring schools for young ladies, Ollier might be found devouring books on metaphysics, morals, criticism and politics. He was asked by several private institutions to give lessons in English, French and Geography; but while teaching others, he himself was studying with Mr. H. N. D. Beyts, who twice filled the post of officer administering the government. Ollier continued his work as a teacher until 1839. At the end of the school year, prizes were distributed, and he had the pleasure of presenting a prize to Miss Louis Sidonie Ferret whom he married in December, 1840.

About a year before his marriage, he bought the school from Mr. Raynaud, with the idea of enlarging it according to his own plans; but this project failed for some unknown reason. He then undertook a trip to India, which seems to have been successful. On his return, he entered business, opening two large stores. His associate did not agree with him in his business plans and the business was dissolved by legal process. He then resumed his position as a teacher in the boarding schools. In 1841, he and his wife opened a school in the western suburb of Port Louis where the Negro population could bring their children for a liberal education upon the payment of a moderate fee. This helped him for a time to solve some of his financial problems but finally failed.

Ollier remained an insatiable reader. He took an active part in a literary club in Port Louis, Le Societe d'Emulation Intellectuelle, and this association helped greatly to increase his knowledge of the literary world. He read literature, history, travels, philosophy, politics and such authors as Lamennais, Montesquieu, Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire, Adam Smith, Horace Say, Ricardo and the like. He read not only because of his love of reading but because he was ambitious to prepare himself for larger duties. The largest duty as he seemed to see it was the freedom of his people from insult and injustice, and the recognition of his people upon the same level as other Mauritians. Before the edict of emancipation, the Legislative Council on June 22, 1829, had granted the free population of color the same civil rights and privileges as other Mauritians possessed, but the local government had failed to carry out the enactment. Remy Ollier felt that this was a blot on the fair name of his country, as well as an affront to his people and longed to do his part in bringing about a change, which he believed could be effected by a newspaper.

An unusual incident translated into action his idea of founding a newspaper. Alexander Dumas had written a play entitled "Anthony," which is composed especially "to castigate morals by exposing vice in opposition to virtue." A contributor to one of the two papers, Le Mauricien, attacked the production of the play, and held up to ridicule the police authorities, who were supposed to be vested with censorial powers. He also criticized the author as a Negro glorifying adultery. The Negroes of the island became indignant and several answers were evoked. Remy Ollier presented a strong defense for Dumas. Another vigorous defense was prepared by Evenor Hitie, a writer of history. These articles were sent to the two papers of the island: Le Cerneen and Le Mauricien, both of which refused to publish them. An Englishman, Mr. Edward Baker, the owner of a printing plant, printed the two answers and circulated them in tract form.

The need of a newspaper became evident to the Negro population. In the time of Ollier, the press was used chiefly for political purposes rather than for the dissemination of information. Policies and parties were aided or hindered by the press, and this was its principal function. Le Balance had been the champion for the government and the rights of the weaker groups; but the editor, Mr. Berquin, was deported in 1833 because of utterances which were considered inimical to the policies of the colonial government. Since 1833, there had been no paper to champion the rights of the Negroes.

After the publication of the answers to the contributor of Le Mauricien, certain influential members of the Negro population, among whom was Remy Ollier, called to see Sir Lionel Smith, G.C.B., Baronet and Governor of the island of Mauritius. It is said that they were warmly received, and that he was astonished to learn that the Negroes, a majority of whom were "the equals of the whites by their stature, by their hearts and their intelligence," had no paper "to make known their wishes and their complaints." He advised his hearers to start a paper, and he promised to support their reasonable demands. But, dying in 1842, Sir Lionel Smith was unable to give any assistance to the new publication.

Through the assistance of Mr. Edward Baker, the printer, the paper Le Sentinelle de Maurice was started. The prospectus, written in French and in English appeared March 21, 1843, and on Saturday, April 8, the first number of the paper came from the press. It was a weekly publication with Ollier and Baker as the editors. The former wrote articles in French and the latter in English, the articles of each being admirably written. Each one in his own sphere spoke with great vehemence and elevation of mind for the cause of "liberty and justice." The paper was read with avidity by the middle and lower classes, and the Negroes soon regarded Ollier as their champion.

The first and most important fight which Ollier felt called upon to enter was the nomination by the Governor of members to the Legislative Council in June, 1843. Ollier noticed that no Negro member was nominated. The vacant seat was given to a white representative, Mr. Forster. Ollier observed "that although a white man whose heart is right and whose intentions are pure can represent the population of color," yet he considered the appointment "as an act that was unjust, impolitic, undemocratic and unconstitutional." He added in explanation that the act was unjust "because all the children of the mother-country, the white colonists especially, were already represented in the Council, except the men of color, whose number is twice that of other populations of the country; their destiny more illustrious, and the high state of their experience, their education, their intelligence and their morals are the same as with others; impolitic, because it discontents and disheartens the loyal and faithful British subjects and might alienate from the government the hearts of those who have invariably remained attached to it; undemocratic, and unconstitutional because the British constitution makes no exception of any person, and because it desires that all its subjects should have an equal part in its benefits."

In 1843, Ollier determined to have his paper appear three times a week, and for this purpose he bought the printing plant of La Balance, the paper which had been forced to suspend its publication ten years before. On the top of the first page of the paper, the royal arms of Great Britain were placed with the motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense! Dieut et mon droit!" He dedicated the paper to a strict vigilance over the abuse of power, "to redress the grievances of the weak and to encourage merit in all classes, creed or color." Those who now assisted him in the editorial work besides Mr. Baker, who edited the English page, were his wife, Emile Sandapa, and Emile Bouchet, a lawyer, who later defended Ollier when he was sued for libel. His editorials framed in animating language aroused his countrymen from their inaction and awakened in them new hopes and aspirations.

Ollier again attacked the government and the party in power, because no place was made for the Negro element in its civil service. In the first issue of La Sentinelle, he wrote, "From day to day the Maurician Press develops a system entirely dangerous and which seems to have this for a foundation—to discredit and debase English institutions and the English Government in the eyes of all. Here are the consequences of this system—the government believing that the opinions of the press are those of all the inhabitants of Maurice, has seen in us enemies rather than loyal and faithful subjects, whence this continual defiance which has driven up to now the people of color from all the public employment.... The organs of this country are all in accord in saying that the government of the United Kingdom is pernicious to us, that it long since desires and plans our ruin; and when our riches and our prosperity proclaim openly the falseness of these allegations, they wish that England, who makes possible this well-being for us, may not have a deep indignation against those who do not have even enough generosity to recognize the benefits of their mother-country.... As for us, our mission is to call all parties of our population to a united intelligence...." On October 22, 1844, he exclaimed, regarding racial distinctions: "Education levels everything. An erudite man in any class is equal to any other man having the same degree of education; he is a demi-god and is superior to kings, when the latter are immersed in the darkness of ignorance."

Ollier continued the attacks upon the government because of its discrimination against its citizens of color and yet he remained a lover of his country. Not only did he agitate through the columns of paper, but also through other available channels. In 1843, he drafted a petition to which many signatures were attached and sent it to Queen Victoria. This action has been called the death-blow to the monopoly of the local parliament by the white population. The petition was:

"May it please your Majesty,—On various occasions the British Throne has been approached by individual members or collective bodies of the Mauritius community in the exercise of that inestimable privilege of your Majesty's faithful subjects, the right of petition; but hitherto, never has any prayer of the great majority of your Majesty's loyal and attached subjects in this island been thus presented to your Majesty's attention.

"The colored classes of Mauritius, comprising a population of about 70,000, and including at least one third of the island's wealth and intelligence, although not deprived of any political right by the fundamental laws of the British realm, or by any act of Your Majesty's Parliament, actually enjoy but few privileges of British subjects; and can scarcely be said to have a political existence in the affairs of their native island.

"Your Majesty's petitioners will refer to the fact of no individual of the coloured classes having a seat in the Council of Government; notwithstanding that there are many in the island in every respect qualified by riches, talents, education, and moral character, to occupy a place in that assembly.

"Whilst therefore gratefully recognizing the equity and impartiality of the British laws and institutions, in which alone repose their best hopes for themselves and their children, your Majesty's petitioners humbly and reverently approach Your Imperial Throne with the prayer that, His Excellency the Governor of Mauritius may be authorized to call to his council one or more representatives of the people of colour in this island; or otherwise to grant to the country the privilege of electing its own representatives. Your Majesty's petitioners will only add the sincere declaration of their loyal and patriotic attachment to Your Majesty's person and Throne and Government; and your petitioners will ever pray."

In 1843, the editor of Le Cerneen, the oldest newspaper in the colony, was prosecuted, fined and imprisoned for publishing a defamatory article against the magistrate of Port Louis. Ollier had always advocated the freedom of the press, and he protested against the law which suppressed free speech, and against the persecution of a fellow-journalist, although the latter was his political enemy. Ollier's biographer adds: "Ollier indeed was an ardent lover and a good hater. This noble heart and comprehensive mind made him understand his duty toward men. He forgot enmity when fundamental principles were not adequately observed."

In 1844, there was established a rival newspaper, l'Esprit Public, to combat the policies of Remy Ollier. It was edited by Mr. Bruils, who had been educated in Europe as a lawyer. He began by finding fault with the style and grammatical form of Ollier's writing, but it is said that the subject-matter of his editorials could be rarely attacked. Ollier's writings were always hasty and he rarely took the time to polish them, while Bruil's style was more smooth and uniform. Ollier's style, however, was easy and original. He replied effectively to the invective of his enemies in prose and in verse. He seems to have had no difficulty in the composition of his sentences nor did he take the pains which would seem to be necessary for the average man to acquire the finished journalistic style. His motto was as he wrote a page "une feuille lue aujourd'hui, oubliee demain." Therefore, he gave his copies to the compositors without rereading them. Concerning the correctness of his writings, his biographer writes: "Like Carlyle, Shelly, Bossuet, Mirabeau and Moliere, the editor of La Sentinelle perpetrated many a small sin against the rules of grammar and certainly paid but a halting attention to the nice distinctions of punctuation. He very often did not know where to end a paragraph and begin another. On the whole, he is happily not obscure." His main effort was to state his idea and when he had made his statement, he was not as careful as he should have been regarding the construction of the statement. He consoled himself with the words, "Grammar is of man; the idea is of God."

His enemies, however, could not say that he was trying to overthrow the empire, for he was merely struggling for the liberty guaranteed by the empire. "In all the British Empire," said he, "there are no subjects more loyal than we. We are English today, we are not a conquered people, we are English people." He was convinced that if England would give the rights of Englishmen to the Mauritians, she would find them "as devoted as any children she could count in her bosom." He added, however, "We belong to England. Why do we not possess the institutions of England? If she wishes to make us love our nationality, to endow our island with that which makes for the glory of our mother-country; this, we shall not be able to know or appreciate if we are strangers to all that which makes it cherish its children and respect its people! At the sight of our institutions, in the presence of the happenings in Mauritius, advancements ruined, individual liberty violated, human life despised, one cannot believe that we belong to an English administration, and that we are a part of the most democratic people in the world."

It was agitation of this type which brought about what may be considered the definite contributions of Remy Ollier to Mauritian life: the creation of the Municipality, the Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, the opening of credits to the Negroes by the Mauritian Commercial Bank, the reforms at the Royal College respecting the English Scholarships, and the employment of men of color in the departments of the government. His attacks upon capital punishment and barbarous prison treatment resulted in laws which mitigated the former harsh conditions, and his criticism of the banking institutions in the crisis of 1843 led to considerable reform in that quarter. His bitter attacks on political and social conditions made many enemies. One evening, he was waylaid by several assailants and given a whipping. He was imprisoned, but he wrote in prison as well as elsewhere.

His political activity was short, for in the early part of 1845, about two years after his appearance in journalism, he died at the early age of 28 years, after a short illness due to an inflammation of the intestines. Stoically he bore the bitter effects of his courageous utterances; and when death came to him after only a short period of endeavor, both in the interests of his own people, and also of the weaker classes of all groups, the success of his efforts had just begun to appear. The name of Remy Ollier in Mauritian history, therefore, symbolizes perseverance in the face of great obstacles, agitation as an instrument of social progress, patriotism as it relates to the island of Mauritius, and justice respecting all classes and races. In 1916, the centenary of his birth was celebrated in Port Louis. Then it was that the city and island demonstrated its love and gratitude for Ollier, because of the services which he rendered the colony in general and the population of color in particular. Remy Ollier was one of the unknown leaders in the cause of freedom.

CHARLES H. WESLEY

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This sketch is drawn largely from a pamphlet, presented to the Association for the study of Negro Life and History by the author A. F. Fokeer. The author states that he has not had access to all the material which he desired to use, for when he applied to the municipality for one of the books concerning Ollier, he received an answer stating "that books written by Mauritians, and published in the colony are by no means to be lent to anybody." Therefore, the source from which most of our information is secured is A Biographical Sketch of the Life, Work and Character of Remy Ollier by A. F. Fokeer, published by the General Printing and Stationery Cy. Ld., 23 Church Street, Mauritius. 1917.

[2] Earlier figures are not available.

[3] General information concerning the island may be obtained from the following: Martin, The British Possessions in Africa, Vol. IV.; Unienville, Statistique de l'ile Maurice et ses dependances; Epinay, Renseignements pour servir a l'histoire de l'ile de France; Decotter, Geographie de Maurice et de ses dependances; Chalmers, A History of Currency in the British Colonies; Anderson, The Sugar Industry of Mauritius; Keller, Madagascar, Mauritius, and other East African Islands; The Mauritius Almanac; The Mauritius Civil Lists; and Annual Colonial Reports.



A NEGRO COLONIZATION PROJECT IN MEXICO, 1895

The Negro question touched the relations of the United States and Mexico at several points. For instance, the escape of runaway slaves into Mexico where slavery was legally forbidden, was a factor in causing disturbances along the Rio Grande between 1850 and 1860.[1] Again, during the following decade when the colonization of the freedmen became a vital issue, there was at least one proposal to settle them on the border between the United States and Mexico. It was urged that a strip of land extending from the Rio Grande to the Colorado and westward to the mountains of New Mexico be set apart by the national government for this purpose. On January 11, 1864, Honorable James H. Lane of Kansas actually introduced a bill looking to this end, which received favorable consideration from the Committee on Territories, but so far as has been ascertained never came to a vote in Congress.[2]

In support of his proposal Lane urged, among other things, that the colonization of the Negroes on this frontier would prove beneficial to Mexico and tend to promote friendship between that country and the United States. "We can thus plant at the door of Mexico," he said, "four million good citizens, who can step in at any time, when invited, to strengthen the hands of that Republic."[3] In similar vein the territorial committee, of which Lane was chairman, declared: "It is desirable to cultivate friendly relations with the people of Mexico. It is known to us that among that people there are no prejudices against the black man, and that intermarriage is not prohibited either by law or custom.... It is confidently believed that the colony provided for in this bill, by intermarriage with the people of those Mexican States, and friendly intercourse with them, would so Americanize them as that they would be prepared and seek an annexation to our then glorious free republic."[4]

The project which is the subject of this paper had no official element motivating it, however. It was merely a private enterprise conducted for the profit of a Mexican land company and a member of the Negro race;[5] and not until the scheme had failed did the United States government take a hand. On December 11, 1894, H. Ellis,[6] a Negro, entered into a contract with the "Agricultural, Industrial, and Colonization Company of Tlahualilo, Limited," for the transportation from the United States by February 15, 1895, of one hundred colored families between the ages of twelve and fifty. The company obligated itself to pay the passage of the colonists provided it did not exceed $20, and after they were established upon the land, to furnish them agricultural implements, stock, seed, and housing quarters, as well as $6 monthly during the first three months, and thereafter a sum later to be agreed upon. Each family was to be given sixty acres for cultivation, forty for cotton, fifteen for corn, and five for a garden.[7] The company was to receive 40% of the yield of cotton and corn, the colonists 50%, and Ellis 10%. The colonists were to have two years in which to pay for their passage; but, of course, the money advanced for sustenance was to be paid from the first crop, except in the event of an extremely lean year. The entire produce of the garden was to go to the Negroes. Stores were to be established in the colony, the colonists were to have their cotton ginned at the gins of the company at the rate of $1.50 per bale, and the company was to be given preference on all the produce sold. The contract was to endure for a period of five years.[8]

Ellis set about immediately to fulfil his agreement. Going among the Negroes of Alabama and Georgia, he issued a rather extravagant circular representing his proposition as presenting the "greatest opportunity ever offered to the colored people of the United States to go to Mexico, ... the country of 'God and Liberty.'" He declared that the land of his company would easily produce a bale of cotton and from fifty to seventy-five bushels of corn per acre; spoke of irrigation facilities which made them independent of the rain, of "fine game, such as deer, bear, duck, and wild geese, and all manner of small game, as well as opossum," and of schools and churches to be constructed; and sought especially to impress upon their minds the fact that "the great Republic of Mexico extends to all of its citizens the same treatment—equal rights to all, special privileges to none."[9]

A number of Negroes were soon attracted by the project and early in February they were ready to set out. In fact, by the 6th a party had already arrived at the hacienda of the company, situated some thirty miles east of Mapimi, Durango, in a rather "wild and inaccessible place" several miles from a railway. On the 25th of the same month another group of colonists put in their appearance, making a total of about 816.

It is interesting to note the section from which the Negroes came, and the size and composition of the families which they brought. Twelve of the number came from Griffin, Georgia; all the rest were from one of seven towns in Alabama; namely, Tuscaloosa, Gadsen, Williams, Eutaw, Carter, Johns, and Birmingham. Of these towns Tuscaloosa furnished by far the greater number, while Eutaw, Gadsen, and Birmingham came next. Only a comparatively small number came from Williams, Carter, and Johns. Instead of having some three or four members as apparently designed in the original contract, some of the families numbered six, eight, and even twelve; and the number of women and children was disproportionately large.

When the colonists arrived at the hacienda they found the ground covered with snow. They were crowded into small, leaky, adobe houses, without floors and with doors which could not be closed tightly. The remainder of the winter and the following spring proved unusually rainy and unpleasant; the food which they were given was probably of a somewhat inferior quality; and their tools were clumsy and dull. These factors possibly account for their homesickness and alleged indisposition to work. Moreover, the small number of able-bodied workingmen among them was disappointing to the colonization company. Naturally enough, mutual dissatisfaction led to quarrels and difficulties. As was to be expected, too, sickness soon visited the settlement, killing off large numbers and terrifying the rest. A sort of liver disease broke out among them in April causing several deaths, and this was followed early in July by the ravages of the smallpox.[10]

The first epidemic was sufficiently terrifying to cause some of the colonists to bolt their contract and attempt to return to the United States. When the smallpox broke out it proved to be too much for their sense of honor or any other restraining force. Those who were able began precipitously to desert the settlement for the United States, apparently giving no attention at all to the matter of sustenance for the journey. By the latter part of July all had left except about fifty of the most persistent and faithful who chose to stay by their crops.[11]

The sufferings of these colonists while at Tlahualilo and on their way to the Rio Grande furnished the press of the United States a sensational topic which it immediately seized upon. Indeed, the first report which reached the United States through official circles was itself sufficiently exaggerated to create excitement. On May 21, 1895, two fugitives from the colony arrived at Chihuahua City where they related stories of oppression and brutal cruelty. One of them reported that upon arriving at the colony the Negroes "found themselves in the worst form of bondage, with no hope of ever securing liberty," and that no letter informing friends of their condition and their suffering was ever permitted to reach the United States. He said he was one of a party of some fifty who had stolen away in the hope of making their escape. The other Negro declared that he was the sole survivor of a party of about forty which had likewise run away from the settlement, but had been overtaken and slain by a band of Mexican guards in the employment of the colonizing company. The consul of the United States at Chihuahua sent immediate notice of the affair to the State Department.[12]

E. C. Butler, charge of the United States in Mexico, was immediately notified and directed to call upon the Mexican government to investigate the affair.[13] Meantime the consular officers of the United States began an investigation of their own which tended to convince them that the extravagant rumors regarding the cruelties perpetrated against the Negroes were totally unfounded. On June 24, the consul at Piedras Negras, Jesse W. Sparks, forwarded a report which he respectfully suggested should be given to the public "in order to contradict the terrible stories of murder and bad treatment of these Negroes ... and deter other Negroes who contemplate colonizing in Mexico." It was based upon a sworn statement made by the purported leader of the runaways, a deposition of another of the colonists, and information received through a traveller from New York City, who claimed to have visited the colony, as well as through a civil engineer who was in the employment of the Mexican International Railroad. From the information furnished by these witnesses Sparks drew the conclusion that the Mexican colonization company had lived up to its contract, that the Negroes had not been cruelly treated while at the colony, and that the report concerning the murder of a portion of the band[14] attempting to escape was absolutely false. The Mexican soldiers alleged to have slain the Negroes were in fact a relief party sent out by the company which, being acquainted with the barren and desolate nature of the country which would have to be crossed in reaching the United States, surmised that the lives of the colonists were in danger.[15]

Those who left the settlement after the smallpox epidemic broke out really suffered severely from lack of food. Without money and without provisions, there would have been no alternative but starvation or highway robbery, if the consular agents of the United States had not come to the rescue. That they came and came effectively is evinced by the fact that very few of the colonists actually died of starvation. One hundred and twenty-five of the Negroes arrived at Mapimi about July 19 and sent a delegation from there to Torreon to appeal to the consul for aid.[16] The agent at this place wrote to the consul at Durango for advice and help, while at the same time he set about to raise funds by voluntary subscription. The consul at Durango responded immediately with financial aid and suggested that the Negroes seek employment; but the small number of the group which was able to work seemed disinclined to do so; and, to make matters worse, the smallpox continued its ravages and in a measure precluded the possibility of obtaining employment even if it had been desired.[17]

The consuls appealed at the same time to the authorities at Washington who replied at first that there was no fund available for the relief of the destitute citizens. As early as July 26, however, General Bliss, who commanded the department of Texas, was ordered to send a physician to help look after the sick and to place 1500 rations into the hands of Consul Sparks at Piedras Negras; and the consul at Piedras Negras was directed, in case return to the colony was not "practicable or consistent with humane considerations," to endeavor to persuade the railroad companies to transport the Negroes to their homes under the promise of receiving remuneration as soon as Congress could be prevailed upon to make an appropriation for that purpose.[18]

Meantime, the demoralized colonists were leaving their crops and making their way first to Mapimi, and later to Torreon, where most of them caught the Mexican International to Eagle Pass. Here they were received in a quarantine encampment especially prepared for them and given clothes, provisions, and medical attention until the smallpox epidemic had been subdued. This required considerable time and the expense was by no means small. Finally, by September 26, those who had been taken into quarantine first were ready to leave, and on that date the Southern Pacific took aboard 167 of them destined for New Orleans, from which point they were to be transported by the Louisville and Nashville to Birmingham, Alabama. On October 4, another group boarded the train; on October 10, another; on October 22, still another; and on November 3, the last of the encampment left Eagle Pass. The last party reached New Orleans on the following day and perhaps arrived at Birmingham on the 5th.[19]

Thus ended the colonization scheme of Ellis and the Mexican land company. It had cost the United States Government more than twenty thousand dollars. It had cost the Tlahualilo Company about seven thousand. But the Negroes themselves had borne the greatest losses. Seventy or more of their number had found graves on the hacienda near Mapimi, 10 had died at Torreon, 8 while en route from that station to Eagle Pass, and 60 in the encampment there, making a total of about 148. Besides these, there were 250 not accounted for and half as many more scattered and possibly separated for years from their friends and relatives. Only 334 left Eagle Pass by train for their homes in Alabama, while the Louisville and Nashville records show that only 326 were taken aboard at New Orleans. What fate overtook the small number who chose to remain with their crops has not been ascertained.[20]

J. FRED RIPPY

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For a brief discussion of these disorders see the present writer's "Border Troubles Along the Rio Grande, 1848-1860," in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXIII, October, 1919, pp. 91-111.

[2] Sen. Jour., 38 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 66, passim.

[3] Cong. Globe, 38 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 673.

[4] Sen. Report No. 8, 38 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 2.

[5] This seems to have been only one of some three or four such undertakings attempted at the time. See House Doc. No. 169, 54 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 44-45.

[6] Elsewhere written W. H. Ellis.

[7] Ellis's contract promised more than this in case of larger families.

[8] For the contract between Ellis and the company see House Doc. No. 169, 54 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 46-48; for that between Ellis and the colonists see ibid., pp. 4-5. There are only a few minor differences in the two.

[9] Ibid., p. 59.

[10] Dwyer's Report, and enclosures, ibid., pp. 42 ff.

[11] Ibid., pp. 23, 36, 42.

[12] Burke to Uhl, May 28, 1895, and enclosure, ibid., pp. 2-3.

[13] Olney to Butler, June 17, 1895, ibid., p. 5.

[14] It appears that only one band had tried to escape prior to July 18 or 19.

[15] Sparks to Uhl, June 24, 1895, and enclosure, ibid., pp. 6-11.

[16] Ibid., pp. 12, 16.

[17] Ibid., pp. 17-20.

[18] Sparks to Uhl, June 4, 1895, and enclosure, pp. 13-14.

[19] Ibid., p. 65.

[20] Sparks to Uhl, June 24, 1895, and enclosure, pp. 42, 65-66.

President Cleveland, in his message of December 2, 1895, urged an appropriation for the reimbursements of the railroads, and on January 27, 1896, he sent a special message to Congress with reference to the matter. Richardson, Messages and Papers, IX, 634, 664.

An appropriation for urgent deficiencies which was passed on February 26, 1896, contained the following interesting item: "For the payment of the cost of transportation furnished by certain railway companies in connection with the failure of the scheme for the colonization of negroes in Mexico, necessitating their return to their homes in Alabama, ... five thousand and eighty-seven dollars and nine cents." 29 U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 18.



DOCUMENTS

JAMES MADISON'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE NEGRO

Like most of the Revolutionary leaders, James Madison, moved by the social and political upheaval of that time thought seriously of the liberation of the slaves, largely for economic reasons. He believed that the country should depend as little as possible on the labor of slaves, knowing that their labor was not sufficiently skillful to furnish the basis for diversified industry. He considered slavery "the great evil under which the nation labors."[1] On another occasion he referred to it as a "portentous evil,"[2] and on still another "an evil, moral, political, and economic, a sad blot on our free country."[3] When, therefore, petitions for the abolition of slavery were presented to the legislature of Virginia, he did not frown upon the proposal as a mischievous agitation as did so many others. Madison looked forward to the eventual extermination of slavery through gradual methods of preparation for emancipation. Feeling that the thorough incorporation of the blacks into the community of whites would be prejudicial to the interests of the country, he had no other thought than that of deportation as a correlative of emancipation. Along with a number of others he discussed the proposal to set apart certain western public lands for the transplantation of the blacks from the slave holding States to free soil, but as the white man by his pioneering efforts so rapidly pushed the frontier to the west as to convince the country of the need of that territory for expansion, Madison soon receded from this position and advocated along with most of the leading men of his time the colonization of the Negroes in Africa.

Madison did not feel that there was any sure ground upon which Congress might participate in the emancipation and the colonization of the Negroes. He suggested that the constitution be amended. He even doubted that the Ordinance of 1787, enacted without authority, had the effect of the emancipation of the slaves and was finally of the opinion that the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in any territory during its territorial period, "depends on the clause in the constitution specially providing for the management of these subordinate establishments."[4] He was rather of the opinion that the restriction was not within the true scope of the constitution. Like Jefferson, therefore, during the later years of his life, Madison saw many difficulties in the way of abolishing slavery. He gave a sympathetic ear to the experiences of the Moravians, Hermonites, and the Shakers, but although he had to concede that slavery impaired the influence of the political example of the United States and was a blot on our republican character, he never became what we could call an abolitionist for the reason that he found it difficult to remove the Negroes from the country when freed. That being the case, he noted with some interest the increase of the slave population, the increase in voluntary emancipation, and the progress of the Colonization Society, to the presidency of which he was elected.[4]

TO ROBERT PLEASANTS

PHILADELPHIA, October 30, 1791

Sir,—The delay in acknowledging your letter of the 6th June last proceeded from the cause you conjectured. I did not receive it till a few days ago, when it was put into my hands by Mr. James Pemberton, along with your subsequent letter of the 8th August.

The petition relating to the Militia bill contains nothing that makes it improper for me to present it. I shall, therefore, readily comply with your desire on that subject. I am not satisfied that I am equally at liberty with respect to the other petition. Animadversions such as it contains, and which the authorized object of the petitioners did not require, on the slavery existing in our country, are supposed by the holders of that species of property to lessen the value by weakening the tenure of it. Those from whom I derive my public station are known by me to be greatly interested in that species of property, and to view the matter in that light. It would seem that I might be chargeable at least with want of candour, if not of fidelity, were I to make use of a situation in which their confidence has placed me to become a volunteer in giving a public wound, as they would deem it, to an interest on which they set so great a value. I am the less inclined to disregard this scruple as I am not sensible that the event of the petition would in the least depend on the circumstance of its being laid before the House by this or that person.

Such an application as that to our own Assembly, on which you ask my opinion, is a subject, in various respects, of great delicacy and importance. The consequences of every sort ought to be well weighed by those who would hazard it. From the view under which they present themselves to me, I cannot but consider the application as likely to do harm rather than good. It may be worth your own consideration whether it might not produce successful attempts to withdraw the privilege now allowed to individuals, of giving freedom to slaves. It would at least be likely to clog it with a condition that the person freed should be removed from the country; there being arguments of great force for such a regulation, and some would concur in it, who, in general, disapprove of the institution of slavery.

I thank you, sir, for the friendly sentiments you have expressed towards me, and am, with respect, your obt, humble servt.[5]

TO ROBERT WALSH[6]

MONTPELLIER, Mar. 2d, 1819.

Dr Sir,—I received some days ago your letter of Feby 15, in which you intimate your intention to vindicate our Country against misrepresentations propagated abroad, and your desire of information on the subject of negro slavery, of moral character, of religion, and of education in Virginia, as affected by the Revolution, and our public Institutions.

The general condition of slaves must be influenced by various causes. Among these are: 1. The ordinary price of food, on which the quality and quantity allowed them will more or less depend. This cause has operated much more unfavorably against them in some quarters than in Virginia. 2. The kinds of labour to be performed, of which the sugar and rice plantations afford elsewhere, and not here, unfavorable examples. 3. The national spirit of their masters, which has been graduated by philosophic writers among the slaveholding Colonies of Europe. 4. The circumstance of conformity or difference in the physical characters of the two classes; such a difference cannot but have a material influence, and is common to all the slaveholding countries within the American hemisphere. Even in those where there are other than black slaves, as Indians and mixed breeds, there is a difference of colour not without its influence. 5. The proportion which the slaves bear to the free part of the community, and especially the greater or smaller numbers in which they belong to individuals.

This last is, perhaps, the most powerful of all the causes deteriorating the condition of the slave, and furnishes the best scale for determining the degree of its hardship.

In reference to the actual condition of slaves in Virginia, it may be confidently stated as better, beyond comparison, than it was before the Revolution. The improvement strikes every one who witnessed their former condition, and attends to their present. They are better fed, better clad, better lodged, and better treated in every respect; insomuch, that what was formerly deemed a moderate treatment, would now be a rigid one, and what formerly a rigid one, would now be denounced by the public feelings. With respect to the great article of food particularly, it is a common remark among those who have visited Europe, that it includes a much greater proportion of the animal ingredient than is attainable by the free labourers even in that quarter of the Globe. As the two great causes of the melioration in the lot of the slaves since the establishment of our Independence, I should set down: 1. The sensibility to human rights, and sympathy with human sufferings, excited and cherished by the discussions preceding, and the spirit of the Institutions growing out of that event. 2. The decreasing proportion which the slaves bear to the individual holders of them; a consequence of the abolition of entails and the rule of primogeniture; and of the equalizing tendency of parental affection unfettered from all prejudices, as well as from the restrictions of law.

With respect to the moral features of Virginia, it must be observed, that pictures which have been given of them are, to say the least, outrageous caricatures, even when taken from the state of society previous to the Revolution; and that so far as there was any ground or colour for them then, the same cannot be found for them now.

Omitting more minute or less obvious causes, tainting the habits and manners of the people under the Colonial Government, the following offer themselves: 1. The negro slavery chargeable in so great a degree on the very quarter which has furnished most of the libellers. It is well known that during the Colonial dependence of Virginia, repeated attempts were made to stop the importation of slaves, each of which attempts was successively defeated by the foreign negative on the laws, and that one of the first offsprings of independent republican legislation was an act of perpetual prohibition.

* * * * *

With the exception of slavery, these demoralizing causes have ceased or are wearing out; and even that, as already noticed, has lost no small share of its former character. On the whole, the moral aspect of the State may, at present, be fairly said to bear no unfavorable comparison with the average standard of the other States. It certainly gives the lie to the foreign calumniators whom you propose to arraign.[7]

TO ROBERT J. EVANS (AUTHOR OF THE PIECES PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME OF BENJAMIN RUSH).

MONTPELLIER, June 15, 1819.

Sir,—I have received your letter of the 3d instant, requesting such hints as may have occurred to me on the subject of an eventual extinguishment of slavery in the United States.

Not doubting the purity of your views, and relying on the discretion by which they will be regulated, I cannot refuse such a compliance as will, at least, manifest my respect for the object of your undertaking.

A general emancipation of slaves ought to be—1. Gradual. 2. Equitable, and satisfactory to the individual immediately concerned. 3. Consistent with the existing and durable prejudices of the nation.

That it ought, like remedies for other deep-rooted and widespread evils, to be gradual, is so obvious, that there seems to be no difference of opinion on that point.

To be equitable and satisfactory, the consent of both the master and the slave should be obtained. That of the master will require a provision in the plan for compensating a loss of what he held as property, guaranteed by the laws, and recognised by the Constitution. That of the slave, requires that his condition in a state of freedom be preferable, in his own estimation, to his actual one in a state of bondage.

To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the United States, the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by, or allotted to, a white population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two people, are, with most of the whites, insuperable; and are admitted by all of them to be very powerful. If the blacks, strongly marked as they are by physical and lasting peculiarities, be retained amid the whites, under the degrading privation of equal rights, political or social, they must be always dissatisfied with their condition, as a change only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederating against the ruling and privileged class; and always uncontrolled by some of the most cogent motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks even where their legal condition is least affected by their color, seems to put these truths beyond question. It is material, also, that the removal of the blacks to be a distance precluding the jealousies and hostilities to be apprehended from a neighboring people, stimulated by the contempt known to be entertained for their peculiar features; to say nothing of their vindictive recollections, or the predatory propensities which their state of society might foster. Nor is it fair, in estimating the danger of collisions with the whites, to charge it wholly on the side of the black. There would be reciprocal antipathies doubling the danger.

The colonizing plan on foot has, as far as it extends, a due regard to these requisites; with the additional object of bestowing new blessings, civil and religious, on the quarter of the Globe most in need of them. The Society proposes to transport to the African coast all free and freed blacks who may be willing to remove thither; to provide by fair means, and, it is understood, with a prospect of success, a suitable territory for their reception; and to initiate them into such an establishment as may gradually and indefinitely expand itself.

The experiment, under this view of it, merits encouragement from all who regard slavery as an evil, who wish to see it diminished and abolished by peaceable and just means, and who have themselves no better mode to propose. Those who have most doubted the success of the experiment must, at least, have wished to find themselves in an error.

But the views of the Society are limited to the case of blacks, already free, or who may be gratuitously emancipated. To provide a commensurate remedy for the evil, the plan must be extended to the great mass of blacks, and must embrace a fund sufficient to induce the master, as well as the slave, to concur in it. Without the concurrence of the master, the benefit will be very limited as it relates to the negroes, and essentially defective as it relates to the United States; and the concurrence of masters must, for the most part, be obtained by purchase.

Can it be hoped that voluntary contributions, however adequate to an auspicious commencement, will supply the sums necessary to such an enlargement of the remedy? May not another question be asked? Would it be reasonable to throw so great a burden on the individuals distinguished by their philanthropy and patriotism?

The object to be obtained, as an object of humanity, appeals alike to all; as a national object, it claims the interposition of the nation. It is the nation which is to reap the benefit. The nation, therefore, ought to bear the burden.

Must, then, the enormous sums required to pay for, to transport, and to establish in a foreign land, all the slaves in the United States, as their masters may be willing to part with them, be taxed on the good people of the United States, or be obtained by loans, swelling the public debt to a size pregnant with evils next in degree to those of slavery itself?

Happily, it is not necessary to answer this question by remarking, that if slavery, as a national evil, is to be abolished, and it be just that it be done at the national expense, the amount of the expense is not a paramount consideration. It is the peculiar fortune, or, rather, a providential blessing of the United States, to possess a resource commensurate to this great object, without taxes on the people, or even an increase of the public debt.

I allude to the vacant territory, the extent of which is so vast, and the vendible value of which is so well ascertained.

Supposing the number of slaves to be 1,500,000, and their price to average 400 dollars, the cost of the whole would be 600 millions of dollars. These estimates are probably beyond the fact; and from the number of slaves should be deducted; 1. Those whom their masters would not part with. 2. Those who may be gratuitously set free by their masters. 3. Those acquiring freedom under emancipating regulations of the States. 4. Those preferring slavery where they are to freedom in an African settlement. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the expense of removal and settlement is not included in the estimated sum; and that an increase of the slaves will be going on during the period required for the execution of the plan.

On the whole, the aggregate sum needed may be stated at about six hundred millions of dollars.

This will require 200 millions of acres, at three dollars per acre; or 300 millions at two dollars per acre; a quantity which, though great in itself, is perhaps not a third part of the disposable territory belonging to the United States. And to what object so good, so great, and so glorious, could that peculiar fund of wealth be appropriated? Whilst the sale of territory would, on one hand, be planting one desert with a free and civilized people, it would, on the other, be giving freedom to another people, and filling with them another desert. And if in any instance wrong has been done by our forefathers to people of one colour, by dispossessing them of their soil, what better atonement is now in our power than that of making what is rightfully acquired a source of justice and of blessings to a people of another colour?

As the revolution to be produced in the condition of the negroes must be gradual, it will suffice if the sale of territory keep pace with its progress. For a time, at least, the proceeds would be in advance. In this case, it might be best, after deducting the expense incident to the surveys and sales, to place the surplus in a situation where its increase might correspond with the natural increase of the unpurchased slaves. Should the proceeds at any time fall short of the calls for their application, anticipations might be made by temporary loans, to be discharged as the land should find a market.

But it is probable that for a considerable period the sales would exceed the calls. Masters would not be willing to strip their plantations and farms of their labourers so rapidly. The slaves themselves connected, as they generally are, by tender ties with others under other masters, would be kept from the list of emigrants by the want of the multiplied consents to be obtained. It is probable, indeed, that for a long time a certain portion of the proceeds might safely continue applicable to the discharge of the debts or to other purposes of the nation, or it might be most convenient, in the outset, to appropriate a certain proportion only of the income from sales to the object in view, leaving the residue otherwise applicable.

Should any plan similar to that I have sketched be deemed eligible in itself, no particular difficulty is foreseen from that portion of the nation, which, with a common interest in the vacant territory, has no interest in slave property. They are too just to wish that a partial sacrifice should be made for the general good, and too well aware that whatever may be the intrinsic character of that description of property, it is one known to the Constitution, and, as such could not be constitutionally taken away without just compensation. That part of the nation has, indeed, shewn a meritorious alacrity in promoting, by pecuniary contributions, the limited scheme for colonizing the blacks, and freeing the nation from the unfortunate stain on it, which justifies the belief that any enlargement of the scheme, if founded on just principles, would find among them its earliest and warmest patrons. It ought to have great weight that the vacant lands in question have, for the most part, been derived from grants of the States holding the slaves to be redeemed and removed by the sale of them.

It is evident, however, that in effectuating a general emancipation of slaves in the mode which has been hinted, difficulties of other sorts would be encountered. The provision for ascertaining the joint consent of the masters and slaves; for guarding against unreasonable valuations of the latter; and for the discrimination of those not proper to be conveyed to a foreign residence, or who ought to remain a charge on masters in whose service they had been disabled or worn out, and for the annual transportation of such numbers, would require the mature deliberations of the national councils. The measure implies also, the practicability of procuring in Africa an enlargement of the district or districts for receiving the exiles sufficient for so great an augmentation of their numbers.

Perhaps the Legislative provision best adapted to the case would be an incorporation of the Colonizing Society, or the establishment of a similar one, with proper powers, under the appointment and superintendence of the National Executive.

In estimating the difficulties, however, incident to any plan of general emancipation, they ought to be brought into comparison with those inseparable from other plans, and be yielded to or not accordingly to the result of the comparison.

One difficulty presents itself which will probably attend every plan which is to go into effect under the Legislative provisions of the National Government. But whatever may be the effect of existing powers of Congress, the Constitution has pointed out the way in which it can be supplied. And it can hardly be doubted that the requisite powers might readily be procured for attaining the great object in question, in any mode whatever approved by the nation.

If these thoughts can be of any aid in your search of a remedy for the great evil under which the nation labors, you are very welcome to them.[8]

TO TENCH COXE.

MONTPELIER, March 20, 1820.

I am glad to find you still sparing moments for subjects interesting to the public welfare. The remarks on the thorny one to which you refer in the "National Recorder," seem to present the best arrangement for the unfortunate part of our population whose case has enlisted the anxiety of so many benevolent minds, next to that which provides a foreign outlet and location for them. I have long thought that our vacant territory was the resource which, in some mode or other, was most applicable and adequate as a gradual cure for the portentous evil; without, however, being unaware that even that would encounter serious difficulties of different sorts.[9]

TO GENERAL LAFAYETTE.

MONTPELIER, NOV. 25, 1820.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The subject which ruffles the surface of public affairs most, at present, is furnished by the transmission of the "Territory" of Missouri from a state of nonage to a maturity for self-Government, and for a membership in the Union. Among the questions involved in it, the one most immediately interesting to humanity is the question whether a toleration or prohibition of slavery Westward of the Mississippi would most extend its evils. The human part of the argument against the prohibition turns on the position, that whilst the importation of slaves from abroad is precluded, a diffusion of those in the Country tends at once to meliorate their actual condition, and to facilitate their eventual emancipation. Unfortunately, the subject, which was settled at the last session of Congress by a mutual concession of the parties, is reproduced on the arena by a clause in the Constitution of Missouri, distinguishing between free persons of colour and white persons, and providing that the Legislature of the new State shall exclude from it the former. What will be the issue of the revived discussion is yet to be seen. The case opens the wider field, as the Constitution and laws of the different States are much at variance in the civic character giving to free persons of colour; those of most of the States, not excepting such as have abolished slavery, imposing various disqualifications, which degrade them from the rank and rights of white persons. All these perplexities develope more and more the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade.[10]

TO F. CORBIN

November 26, 1820.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I do not mean to discuss the question how far slavery and farming are incompatible. Our opinions agree as to the evil, moral, political, and economical, of the former. I still think, notwithstanding, that under all the disadvantages of slave cultivation, much improvement in it is practicable. Proofs are annually taking place within my own sphere of observation; particularly where slaves are held in small numbers, by good masters and managers. As to the very wealthy proprietors, much less is to be said. But after all, (protesting against any inference of a disposition to undertake the evil of slavery,) is it certain that in giving to your wealth a new investment, you would be altogether freed from the cares and vexations incident to the shape it now has? If converted into paper, you already feel some of the contingencies belonging to it; if into commercial stock, look at the wrecks every where giving warning of the danger. If into large landed property, where there are no slaves, will you cultivate it yourself? Then beware of the difficulty of procuring faithful or complying labourers. Will you dispose of it in leases? Ask those who have made the experiment what sort of tenants are to be found where an ownership of the soil is so attainable. It has been said that America is a country for the poor, not for the rich. There would be more correctness in saying it is the country for both, where the latter have a relish for free government; but, proportionally, more for the former than for the latter.[11]

TO GENERAL LA FAYETTE.

1821.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The negro slavery is, as you justly complain, a sad blot on our free country, though a very ungracious subject of reproaches from the quarter which has been most lavish of them. No satisfactory plan has yet been devised for taking out the stain. If an asylum could be found in Africa, that would be the appropriate destination for the unhappy race among us. Some are sanguine that the efforts of an existing Colonization Society will accomplish such a provision; but a very partial success seems the most that can be expected. Some other region must, therefore, be found for them as they become free and willing to emigrate. The repugnance of the whites to their continuance among them is founded on prejudices, themselves founded on physical distinctions, which are not likely soon, if ever, to be eradicated. Even in States, Massachusetts for example, which displayed most sympathy with the people of colour on the Missouri question, prohibitions are taking place against their becoming residents. They are every where regarded as a nuisance, and must really be such as long as they are under the degradation which public sentiment inflicts on them. They are at the same time rapidly increasing from manumissions and from offspring, and of course lessening the general disproportion between the slaves and the whites. This tendency is favorable to the cause of a universal emancipation."[12]

TO DR. MORSE

March 28, 1823

Queries.

1. Do the planters generally live on their own estates?

2. Does a planter with ten or fifteen slaves employ an overlooker, or does he overlook his slaves himself?

3. Obtain estimates of the culture of Sugar and Cotton, to show what difference it makes where the planter resides on his estate, or where he employs attorneys, overlookers, &c.

4. Is it a common or general practice to mortgage slave estates?

5. Are sales of slave estates very frequent under execution for debt and what proportion of the whole may be thus sold annually?

6. Does the Planter possess the power of selling the different branches of a family separate?

7. When the prices of produce, Cotton Sugar, &c., are high, do the Planters purchase, instead of raising, their corn and other provisions?

8. When the prices of produce are low, do they then raise their own corn and other provisions?

9. Do the negroes fare better when the Corn, &c., is raised upon their master's estate or when he buys it?

10. Do the tobacco planters in America ever buy their own Corn or other food, or do they always raise it?

11. If they always, or mostly, raise it, can any other reason be given for the differences of the system pursued by them and that pursued by the Sugar and Cotton planters than that cultivation of tobacco is less profitable than that of Cotton or Sugar?

12. Do any of the Planters manufacture the packages for their product, or the clothing for their negroes and if they do, are their negroes better clothed than when clothing is purchased?

13. Where, and by whom, is the Cotton bagging of the Brazils made? is it principally made by free men or slaves?

14. Is it the general system to employ the negroes in task work, or by the day?

15. How many hours are they generally at work in the former case? how many in the latter? Which system is generally preferred by the master? which by the slaves?

16. Is it common to allow them a certain portion of time instead of their allowance of provisions? In this case, how much is allowed? Where the slaves have the option, which do they generally choose? On which system do the slaves look the best, and acquire the most comforts?

17. Are there many small plantations where the owners possess only a few slaves? What proportion of the whole may be supposed to be held in this way?

18. In such cases, are the slaves treated or almost considered a part of the family?

19. Do the slaves fare best when their situations and that of the master are brought nearest together?

20. In what state are the slaves as to religion or religious instruction?

21. Is it common for the slaves to be regularly married?

22. If a man forms an attachment to a woman on a different or distant plantation, is it the general practice for some accommodation to take place between the owners of the man and woman, so that they may live together?

23. In the United States of America, the slaves are found to increase at about the rate of 3 P cent. P annum. Does the same take place in other places? Give a census, if such is taken. Show what cause contributes to this increase, or what prevents it where it does not take place.

24. Obtain a variety of estimates from the Planters of the cost of bringing up a child, and at what age it becomes a clear gain to its owner.

25. Obtain information respecting the comparative cheapness of cultivation by slaves or by free men.

26. Is it common for the free blacks to labour in the field?

27. Where the labourers consist of free blacks and of white men, what are the relative prices of their labour when employed about the same work?

28. What is the proportion of free blacks and slaves?

29. Is it considered that the increase in the proportion of free blacks to slaves increases or diminishes the danger of insurrection?

30. Are the free blacks employed in the defence of the Country, and do they and the Creoles preclude the necessity of European troops?

31. Do the free blacks appear to consider themselves as more closely connected with the slaves or with the white population? and in cases of insurrection, with which have they generally taken part?

32. What is their general character with respect to industry and order, as compared with that of the slaves?

33. Are there any instances of emancipation in particular estates, and what is the result?

34. Is there any general plan of emancipation in progress, and what?

35. What was the mode and progress of emancipation in those States in America where slavery has ceased to exist?

Hon. James Madison, Esq.

New Haven, Mar. 14, 1823.

Sir.—The foregoing was transmitted to me from a respectable correspondent in Liverpool, deeply engaged in the abolition of the slave trade, and the amelioration of the condition of slaves. If, sir, your leisure will allow you, and it is agreeable to you to furnish brief answers to these questions, you will, I conceive, essentially serve the cause of humanity, and gratify and oblige the Society above named, and, Sir, with high consideration and esteem, your most obt servt,

JED'H MORSE.

Answers

1. Yes.

2. Employs an overseer for that number of slaves, with few exceptions.

3. ——

4. Not uncommonly the land; sometimes the slaves; very rarely both together.

5. The common law, as in England, governs the relation between land and debts; slaves are often sold under execution for debt; the proportion to the whole cannot be great within a year, and varies, of course, with the amount of debt and the urgency of creditors.

6. Yes.

7-10. Instances are rare where the tobacco planters do not raise their own provisions.

11. The proper comparison, not between the culture of tobacco and that of sugar and cotton, but between each of these cultures and that of provisions. The tobacco planter finds it cheaper to make them a part of his crop than to buy them. The cotton and sugar planters to buy them, where this is the case, than to raise them. The term, cheaper, embraces the comparative facility and certainty of procuring the supplies.

12. Generally best clothed when from the household manufactures, which are increasing.

14, 15. Slaves seldom employed in regular task work. They prefer it only when rewarded with the surplus time gained by their industry.

16. Not the practice to substitute an allowance of time for the allowance of provisions.

17. Very many, and increasing with the progressive subdivisions of property; the proportion cannot be stated.

18, 19. The fewer the slaves, and the fewer the holders of slaves, the greater the indulgence and familiarity. In districts composing (comprising?) large masses of slaves there is no difference in their condition, whether held in small or large numbers, beyond the difference in the dispositions of the owners, and the greater strictness of attention where the number is greater.

20. There is no general system of religious instruction. There are few spots where religious worship is not within reach, and to which they do not resort. Many are regular members of Congregations, chiefly Baptist; and some Preachers also, though rarely able to read.

21. Not common; but the instances are increasing.

22. The accommodation not unfrequent where the plantations are very distant. The slaves prefer wives on a different plantation, as affording occasions and pretexts for going abroad, and exempting them on holidays from a share of the little calls to which those at home are liable.

23. The remarkable increase of slaves, as shown by the census, results from the comparative defect of moral and prudential restraint on the sexual connexion; and from the absence, at the same time, of that counteracting licentiousness of intercourse, of which the worst examples are to be traced where the African trade, as in the West Indies, kept the number of females less than of the males.

24. The annual expense of food and raiment in rearing a child may be stated at about 8, 9, or 10 dollars; and the age at which it begins to be gainful to its owner about 9 or 10 years.

25. The practice here does not furnish data for a comparison of cheapness between these two modes of cultivation.

26. They are sometimes hired for field labour in time of harvest, and on other particular occasions.

27. The examples are too few to have established any such relative prices.

28. See the census.

29. Rather increases.

30. —————

31. More closely with the slaves, and more likely to side with them in a case of insurrection.

32. Generally idle and depraved; appearing to retain the bad qualities of the slaves, with whom they continue to associate, without acquiring any of the good ones of the whites, from whom (they) continued separated by prejudices against their colour, and other peculiarities.

33. There are occasional instances in the present legal condition of leaving the State.

34. None.

35. —————[13]

TO MISS FRANCES WRIGHT

MONTPELLIER, Sept. 1, 1825.

Dear Madam,—Your letter to Mrs. Madison, containing observations addressed to my attention also, came duly to hand, as you will learn from her, with a printed copy of your plan for the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States.

The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged, that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it. Unfortunately the task, not easy under other circumstances, is vastly augmented by the physical peculiarities[14] of those held in bondage, which preclude their incorporation with the white population; and by the blank in the general field of labour to be occasioned by their exile; a blank into which there would not be an influx of white labourers, successively taking the place of the exiles, and which, without such an influx, would have an effect distressing in prospect to the proprietors of the soil.

The remedy for the evil which you have planned is certainly recommended to favorable attention by the two characteristics: 1. That it requires the voluntary concurrence of the holders of the slaves, with or without pecuniary compensation. 2. That it contemplates the removal of those emancipated, either to a foreign or distant region. And it will still further obviate objections, if the experimental establishments should avoid the neighborhood of settlements where there are slaves.

Supposing these conditions to be duly provided for, particularly the removal of the emancipated blacks, the remaining questions relate to the attitude and adequacy of the process by which the slaves are at the same time to earn the funds, entire or supplemental, required for their emancipation and removal; and to be sufficiently educated for a life of freedom and of social order.

With respect to a proper course of education, no serious difficulties present themselves. And as they are to continue in a state of bondage during the preparatory period, and to be within the jurisdiction of States recognizing ample authority over them, a competent discipline cannot be impracticable. The degree in which this discipline will enforce the needed labour, and in which a voluntary industry will supply the defect of compulsory labour, are vital points, on which it may not be safe to be very positive without some light from actual experiment.

Considering the probable composition of the labourers, and the known fact that, where the labour is compulsory the greater the number of labourers brought together (unless, indeed, where cooperation of many hands is rendered essential by a particular kind of work, or of machinery) the less are the proportional profits, it may be doubted whether the surplus from that source merely, beyond the support of the establishment would sufficiently accumulate in five, or even more years, for the objects in view. And candor obliges me to say that I am not satisfied either that the prospect of emancipation at a future day will sufficiently overcome the natural and habitual repugnance to labour, or that there is such an advantage of united over individual labour as is taken for granted.