The Journal of Negro History, Volume 4, 1919

Various laws of the early codes, 1813, 1819, 1829, restricting the slave from selling or vending articles under conditions apart from desire or knowledge of his owner are all evidence of his complete subjection by law to the will of his master, even in the smallest things and affairs of personal life, and disposal of belongings. Great care was taken to state specifically in these early laws that there should be no sale of liquor or any intoxicant to slaves.[525 - Statute Laws, 1813, Chap. 135.]

The provisions concerning larger questions of a slave's activity and privilege are all interesting, and it will be of value to regard, first of all, that for bringing slaves into the State. Slaves were not to be brought into Tennessee unless for use, or procured by descent, devise, or marriage.[526 - Ibid., 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 1.] This enactment was made in 1826, and prepared the way for far more severe measures later. The idea of all legislation of this nature argues clearly the discouragement of slavery as a prevailing institution, by means of preventing fresh importations for sale. Tennessee was not to be, if it could be prevented, a slave market, like Mississippi.

A citizen holding slaves might petition the county court and emancipate a slave. Bond and security were required of the owner, and the slave thus set at liberty became free to go where he chose provided that, if he became a pauper, he should be brought to the county in which he had been set free, and there taken care of at public expense.[527 - Ibid., 1801, Ch. 27, Sec. 1.] But occasionally there would arise a situation which required special enactment of the legislature as in the instance of one, Pompey Daniels, a slave, who died before the emancipation of his two children, Jeremiah and Julius, whom he had purchased. This required a special act of the legislature, as there seems to have been no law covering such a case.[528 - Acts of Gen. Assembly (Tenn.), 1822, Ch. 102.] Years before, in 1801, there was enacted a law, giving power of emancipation to the owner, as we have just seen before, but not to any slave who might essay to deliver another from bondage.[529 - Cf. 1 and 2.]

Once free, the Negro's status was rather precarious in some respects. He was required to have papers filled out by the clerk of the county in which he lived, specifying personal details and information intended to identify the person thoroughly. He must without fail have these emancipation records with him at any time and place in order to prove his freedom. In 1831 a law was passed which made it obligatory for the slave to leave upon his emancipation, and persons intending to emancipate their slaves were then compelled to give bond for their speedy removal.[530 - Statute Laws, 1831, Ch. 102, Sec. 2.] Another clause of the same law stipulates that free Negroes should not be allowed to enter the State.[531 - Ibid., Sec. 2.] Fine and imprisonment were specified as penalties for remaining in the State as long as twenty days. This was a reaction from the provisions of State laws of 1825 when free colored persons immigrating into the State might have papers of freedom registered there, when proof of their absolute freedom had been made. Before the enactment of 1831, the increase of free Negroes was not so actively discouraged by the State, and many having their residence there, the laws concerning this class were quite as important and nearly as well detailed as the provisions of the slave code.

Among the early laws is one exacting a penalty of $500 fine for selling a "free person of color."[532 - Statute Laws, 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 6.] A free person imported and sold as a slave under the law might recover double the price of his sale from the seller, who might be held until he should give bond.[533 - Ibid., 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 23.] This marks a high degree of feeling of justice toward the freeman, and yet it is worthy of notice that this was not always adequate to obtaining actual justice. Record is given of three young colored men, seamen and free, "carried to Mobile and New Orleans in the steamer New Castle and taken ashore by the captain to the city prison on pretext of getting hemp for the vessel, but really taken by the captain to the city prison as his slaves and sold by the jailor to three persons who carried them into Tennessee."[534 - Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery Convention, London, 1843.] It is further stated that these unfortunates remained in slavery. One, however, was freed by the diligent work of the Friends, who had agents in the South busy gathering information concerning slavery, and planning means of combating it.

The free person of color was exempted from military duty and from the payment of a poll-tax. In accordance with an amendment to the Public Works act of 1804, he was expected to give service on public roads and highways just as other citizens.[535 - Acts of the Gen. Assembly, Tennessee, 1821, Chap. 26.] It is doubtful whether any freeman of color voted under the constitution of 1796, but it seems to have been possible. The new constitution of 1834 restricted the right of voting to "free men who should be competent witnesses against a white man in a court of justice." In the courts free Negroes were legal witnesses in certain cases among their own people, but might themselves be testified against by slaves, even, if the defendants were only freedmen.[536 - Statute Laws, Tenn., Chap. 6, Sec. 2. Laws of 1787.] Otherwise slaves were not allowed to be witnesses against free men of color. Writs of error were granted to both freemen and slaves.

There were numerous small observances regarding the personal conduct of freemen. Life was at best for them a strange and circumscribed affair. They were "neither bond nor free," and probably suffered more from the provisions of the law and their ambiguous position than did their slave brothers. The freeman was not to entertain any slave over night in his home, or on the Sabbath. A small fine was the penalty.[537 - Statute Laws, Tenn., Chap. 6, Sec. 2, Laws of 1787.] Intermarriage of free persons and slaves without consent of the master of the slave was strictly forbidden. Breach of this law, also, was punishable by fine. There were penalties for whites and free Negroes alike for being in "unlawful assembly" with slaves. The word "unlawful" here seems to have had a special judicial meaning, signifying primarily for the purpose of instigating rebellion or insurrection. A law providing for voluntary enslavement of a free person of color, to any person whom he might choose, introduces a most interesting situation which probably indicates that there were more than a few free Negroes who preferred slavery to the condition of a creature living in a sort of limbo between freedom and bondage.

By an act of the legislature in 1819, encouragement was given to European immigrants to come into the State, with the idea that they would become home builders and land-tillers, and make good citizens. The colored population already had a general reputation for thrift, but the sentiment of racial sympathy in the white population just then favored more the immigrant. For a period the tide of public opinion was on this side, and it was considered best for the Negro to be taken in charge by the Tennessee Colonization Society. The State appropriated $10 for every black man removed from the State, an expense finally sanctioned by a law of 1833.[538 - Ibid., 1833, Chap. 4, Sec. 1.]

Two years prior to the year of the Tennessee Constitutional Convention of 1834, Virginia in her State Legislature, had witnessed an exciting scene of debate on the question of slavery. In the District of Columbia, also, there was sent to Congress in the session of 1827-28 a petition requesting the "prospective abolition" of slavery in that district, and the repeal of certain laws authorizing the sale of runaways. Similarly in Tennessee the outbreak of antislavery sentiment, long fostered in the eastern part of the State, came into the Convention of 1834. The few details presented here concerning the convention show conclusively that there was a strong, even violent opposition to human slavery in the State. Certain representatives of counties from East Tennessee were conspicuous for their protest against the system, and maintained their convictions despite the failure to win their point at that time.

Many memorialists in the State had addressed the legislature on the question of emancipation both pro and con prior to the convention, and finally, in the convention, on June 18, Wm. Blount of Montgomery County, Northern Tennessee, offered a memorial that on the subject of slavery the General Assembly should have no power or authority to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners or without paying their owners.[539 - Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, 1834.] The memorial further prayed that, the legislature should not discourage the foreign immigration into the State and that certain laws providing for the owners of slaves to emancipate them should be made with the restriction that beforehand such manumitted persons should be assuredly prevented from becoming a charge to any county.

There were presented other memorials respecting the slave population at this time. Hess, of Gibson and Dyer counties, wanted no emancipation of slaves except by individual disposition of their masters as the latter saw fit, or at least never unless the price of the slave was paid, provided the master did not freely give manumission, and the good of the State seemed to demand the liberation of the slave. But memorials of a different sentiment also were coming in. On May 26, McNeal presented a memorial of sundry citizens of McMinn County, asking for the emancipation of slaves in Tennessee, and on the same date, Senter of Rhea County also brought a petition from "sundry citizens" of his district asking for emancipation.[540 - Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, pp. 31-40.] On the 28th, a memorial was given by Stephenson of Washington County from citizens unhesitatingly favoring emancipation. It was read and tabled.

On May 30, Stephenson introduced a resolution to have a committee of thirteen, one from each congressional district "appointed to take in consideration the propriety of designating some period from which slavery shall not be tolerated in this state, and that all memorials on that subject that have or may be presented to the convention be referred to said committee to consider and report thereon."[541 - Ibid., p. 53.] This resolution passed without trouble.

Stephenson was conspicuous for adherence to emancipation principles. It will be observed that he came from Washington County, in the far eastern portion of the State, the region already famous for its declaration of enmity toward slavery within Tennessee borders especially. An article in the Knoxville Register of the year 1831, just a few years prior to this Nashville Convention, denounces slavery in no uncertain terms, but also grows bitter at the thought of free men of color even remaining in the State. "Shall Tennessee" it asks, "be made the receptacle of the vicious and desperate slave as well as the depraved and corrupting free man of color?"[542 - Southern Statesman (clipping from Knoxville Register, Oct., 1831).]

But while a great number of those of East Tennessee probably wanted the abolition of slavery in order to rid the State of all people of color, there were those who through their delegates expressed their opinions otherwise in this convention, as has been intimated in the three memorials from "sundry citizens" of Washington and McMinn and Rhea Counties. Finally, the report of the Committee of Thirteen was given by John A. McKinney, of Hawkins County. It will be noted as an exception to the rule that this representative of an eastern county did not vigorously stand for the emancipation of the slave, but in his report spoke at length to attempt the justification of the system prevailing at that time in the State. Some of the most interesting points of his argument are: that slavery is an evil, but hard to remove, that the physiognomy of the slave is the great barrier to successful adjustment socially as far as white citizens think and feel, that the condition of the free man of color is tragic, that beset with temptations, and denied his oath in a court of justice, he is unable to have wrongs of whites against him redressed, that any interference with slavery at this time would cause a speedy removal of Tennessee population since slave-owners would seek other States with their slaves, and that if Tennessee should free all her slaves, there would be a greater concentration of all the slaves of the United States, giving slaves more advantage in case of uprising.

Since the slave population in 1830 was 142,530, a fair estimate for 1834 would be 150,000, and this host of newly-made freedmen, thought he, would jeopardize the social safety of the white population of Tennessee, and incite the slave inhabitants of adjoining States to sedition. Slavery would not always exist, he believed, but Tennessee could abolish it then without dire results. Colonization was difficult, but possible and practicable.

This report was given on June 19. A few days later a motion was made by a Bedford County delegate to strike out that part of the report referring to the condition of the free man of color as "tragic." This did not prevail. Still later Stephenson in a set speech protested vigorously against the acceptance of the report of the Committee of Thirteen. He declared that the report was "an apology for slavery," and did not show the convention willing to discharge its duty to the memorialists, and to the people whose protests could not there be heard. His principal argument was that the principles guiding this committee in its decision were subversive of the principles of true republicanism; that they were also against the principles of the Bible. Since the committee had admitted the evil of slavery, he contended, the failure to find a remedy is unworthy of the representatives of the people of the State. He maintained that there is no soundness in the argument that because of the physical differences, the black man should be deprived of the "common rights of man," and that it is not better to have slavery distributed over a large area of country than to concentrate it, if slavery is an evil, since the spread of any evil cannot be better than its limitation.[543 - Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, 1834, pp. 102-104.]

As an indirect blow at any possible suffrage right of any persons of color under the new constitution, Marr, delegate from Weakley and Obion, introduced a resolution at this time intended to restrict suffrage permanently and definitely to white males, specifically prohibiting all "mulattoes, negroes, and Indians." This was referred to the committee of the whole, but, oddly enough, failed of adoption.[544 - Ibid., pp. 125-126.] The intermittent debate on the subject of emancipation, led on the one side by Stephenson, and on the other by McKinney, was resumed a few days later when the latter gave an additional report. He stated that the memorials with their signatures had been examined and the names attached to them had numbered 1804 in all. 105 purported to be slave-holders, said he, but by inquiry the committee had ascertained that the aggregate number of slaves in their possession was not greater than 500. He admitted that there were several counties from which memorials had come, but charged that there had been a signing of more than one memorial in some counties by the same persons, so that there was a doubling of names without a proportional increase of individual signers. He depreciated Stephenson's statement that these memorials had come from almost every part of the State as ill-founded; for the sixteen counties of Tennessee which had sent representatives with memorials favorable to the idea of emancipation were not from widely scattered portions of the State. Only five extended westward beyond the longitude of Chattanooga, and there were none of the more western counties represented. The two sections of the State seemed to bear no hostility toward each other, but decidedly disagreed on the slavery question. The question was largely an economic one with the Tennesseans of the Mississippi Valley. Cotton was coming into greater and greater importance every year. It could, they thought, be most profitably raised by large groups of workmen whose labor was cheap. The slave was the logical person, and they fastened on him the burden.

Lest the impression has been made that the only portion of the State from which the sentiment of an anti-slavery nature came was East Tennessee, it will be well to refer to the vigorous speech of Kincaid, a delegate from Bedford County, who flung a parting reply to the friends and sympathizers of the Committee of Thirteen which had succeeded in thwarting any official action upon the matter proposed by the memorialists.[545 - Journal Const. Conv., op. cit., pp. 214 et seq.] Bedford County, in the central portion of the State, represented both economically and socially a type of citizen different from that of the mountaineer stock. Yet Kincaid fearlessly defended the plain human rights of the colored population in his speech as much as Stephenson had done, and scathingly denounced the Committee of Thirteen for its attitude toward slavery.

The pro-slavery faction, however, successfully contended that the emancipation party had no definite plan for emancipation, as those in Washington County and other districts were divided in their ideas on this subject. There were about thirty memorials besides the one from this county, one half of them asking that all children born in the State after 1835 should be free and that all slaves should be freed in 1855 and sent out of the State. The other half of the memorials favored making the slaves free in 1866 and having them colonized. As a matter of fact, Tennessee did emancipate its slaves three years earlier than this date. By the Committee of Thirteen these statements were given to show that there could be no virtue in acting in accord with the wishes of the memorialists, as they were hopelessly divided in their recommendations. The report of the committee was tabled, but the debate was by no means ended. Further detail is not of use to us here save to point out that there was no vote in the matter and that Stephenson bitterly upbraided the convention as a whole, stating that it had not made an effort to answer the prayer of the memorialists. The survey of this prolonged and unprofitable struggle shows how divided were the people of Tennessee on the question of abolishing slavery.[546 - Tennessee Constitutional Journal, 1834, pp. 126 et seq.]

Later in the convention there occurred some incidents which throw light on the situation of the Negro. The Bill of Rights in the amended constitution, sec. 26, provided: "That free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms in their own defence."[547 - Ibid., pp. 184 et seq.] A delegate from Sevier County objected to the word "white" and moved that it be stricken from the record. Another member from Green County moved that the word "citizens" be inserted instead of "free white men," but this was rejected by a vote of 19 to 30, Stephenson and and others from East Tennessee voting with the ayes, and the Committee of Thirteen with others defeating the motion. A resolution was then brought forward by a delegate from Dyer County intended to prohibit the general assembly from having power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without consent of owners.[548 - Ibid., p. 200, p. 209.] Immediately a memorialist sympathizer moved to lay this on the table until January, 1835. His effort was lost, and the resolution passed. Thus was the day completely won for the anti-emancipation faction.

There had been considerable discussion as to the status of free men of color, and although one provision of the constitution seemed to give the right of suffrage to all free men, yet there was a restriction limiting the privilege of voting to those who were "competent witnesses in a court of justice against a white person."[549 - Constitution of Tenn., 1834, Art. 3, Sec. 1.] One commentator upon his unusual provision observes that one cannot tell how many Negroes were entitled to vote under this provision.[550 - Code of Tenn. '57, '58, Sec. 3809.] But whatever present-day students may make of this, it was recognized by the members of this convention that the free Negro had no suffrage right, for near the close of the convention there was submitted a resolution providing that since "free men of color were denied suffrage by the constitution," the apportionment of senators and representatives from their respective districts should be based on the white population alone.[551 - Stephenson, Race Distinctions in American Law, p. 284. Tenn. Const. Conv. Journal, 1834, op. cit., p. 209.] The revised constitution contains this provision, but with different wording.

The general tendency of the whole body of legal enactments in the period 1834-65 was toward restricting the slave more and more, and at the same time, eliminating the element known as free Negroes. Probably this had an effect upon the percentage of free Negroes in the total population as seen in the years 1820 and 1850. The national percentage for these years in question was in each case six tenths of one per cent.[552 - Bureau of the Census, "A Century of Pop. Growth," p. 82. Washington, 1909.] But as the total Negro population increased despite the migration southward from Tennessee, the ratio for Tennessee in 1820 was 3 per cent, and for 1850, 2.4 per cent, a period of greater repression, showing decrease, although very slight.

A general law of 1839 forbade the slave to act as a free person, that is, to hire his own time from his master, or to have merchandisable property and trade therewith.[553 - Acts of Tenn., 1846, Chap. 47 (Nicholson).] Runaways were to be punished by being made to labor on the streets or alleys of towns, as well as by imprisonment. Several laws show the tendency to class free Negroes with slaves by stating that all capital offences for slaves were also capital offences for free Negroes.[554 - Code of 1858, Tenn., Art. IV, See. 2725.] Another plainly provides that all offences made capital in the code of that time for slaves, should also be capital for "free persons of color."[555 - Ibid., Sec. 2725.] Further, "no free person of color might keep a grocery or tippling house" under pain of a heavy fine. It will be seen that the attitude thus was plainly more and more adverse to the free Negro. An act of 1842 had made it possible to amend all laws relating to "free persons of color," and this was freely done.[556 - Ibid., Sec. 2728.]

Free Negroes of "good character," either resident in the State prior to 1836 or having removed to the State before that year, and preferring, in their respective county courts, petitions to remain in the same, might do so, but otherwise must leave the State under severe penalties of imprisonment and hard labor, as provided under the law of 1831, prior to the new constitution. The subjects of this legal provision were to renew this court proceeding every three years, under the same penalty for failing to perform the renewal.[557 - Nicholson, Acts of Tenn., 1846, Chap. 191, Sec. 1.] The laws of registry of free Negroes were kept in force and made, if anything, more rigid. One provision of these enactments was that there should be in the registration papers specification of any "peculiar physical marks on the person" so registered.[558 - Code of Tenn., op. cit., Sec. 2714.] This practice, defended by law, is exceedingly interesting to the student who compares it with what has long been common knowledge regarding the practices of slave-buyers in the markets. And here we have a measure of the complete humiliation of the "free person of color," for every free Negro or mulatto residing in any county of the State was compelled to undergo this examination before officers of the county court and be duly registered thereafter as a free person.[559 - Ibid., Sec. 2793-2794. Cf. Statute Laws here.]

As might be expected, the law of 1831 was followed up by enactments strictly requiring the emancipation of slaves, when allowed by the State, to be followed closely by the removal of the freedmen from the State. Also instructions for the transportation of certain Negroes to Africa were given in the same code. Those who had acquired freedom after 1836, or who should do so, together with slaves successfully suing for freedom, also free Negroes unable to give bond for good behavior although having right to reside in the State, were all to be transported to Africa, unless they went elsewhere out of the State, according to provision by law.[560 - Statute Laws, Tenn., 1846, Ch. 191.]

The word "mulatto" is found often in the laws of this period, showing that this type was becoming an important factor in the race relations of white and black. As far as is known, there is no way of obtaining even the approximate proportion of white mothers to white fathers, but because of the overwhelming evidence by personal testimony of ex-slaves as to the relations of the masters and overseers of plantations to the slave women, and the corresponding power of the dominant race to prevent, at least in large degree, similar physical marriages between Negroes and the women of their race, we may be said rightly to infer that the proportion of white mothers of colored offspring to white fathers was then, as it has always been, very small. In Maryland, according to Brackett, the child of a white father and a mulatto slave could not give testimony in court against a white person, whereas the child of a white mother and a black man would be disqualified in this regard only during his term of service.[561 - Brackett, "The Negro in Maryland," Johns Hopkins Studies, Ch. V, p. 191.] "A free mulatto was good evidence," says he, "against a white person."[562 - Ibid., pp. 191-192.] The mulatto of Tennessee had no such social or legal position as either of these cases indicate, although here again personal testimony brings to light notable exceptions of the social behavior of individuals in certain localities, where this type, that is, the colored offspring of white motherhood, was regarded as a separate class, above the ordinary person of color.[563 - Personal Testimony, B. S.; J. P. Q. E.; E. S. M. Nashville, 1912.]

It is likely that in East Tennessee there was considerable prevalence of such amalgamation of African and Scotch-Irish race stocks, with white motherhood.[564 - {Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}] The reasons were largely economic. Many of the whites who came to live in the lower farm lands down from their first holdings on the rocky slopes and unfertile soil, were driven from these more productive lowlands by the rich white land owners who preferred to have large plantations with great numbers of blacks to raise the crops, rather than to rent or sell to small farmers. For these poorer white neighbors there was no recourse but to take to the mountains and to cultivate there the less desirable lands. The life they had to live was necessarily very rough and hard; their principal diet was corn, and often the rocky soil only yielded them that grudgingly and scantily. They frequently came in contact with the slaves, and the latter were known to steal provisions from their masters' storehouses and bring to these hill-country people appetizing additions to their meager provisions. And the slaves were also known to mingle with them in the quilting, husking, barn-raisings, and other rural festivities, being undoubtedly made welcome. It requires no immoderate imagination to state here the likelihood of much racial intermixure, as we know, from testimony, of more than a few specific cases, and we have, in this rather strange way, the account of social intermingling and the secret gifts of the black men who visited these mountain homes.

    William Lloyd Imes.

Philadelphia, Pa.

NEGRO LIFE AND HISTORY IN OUR SCHOOLS

The study of the ethnology and the history of the Negro has not yet extended far beyond the limit of cold-blooded investigation. Prior to the Civil War few Americans thought seriously of studying the Negro in the sense of directing their efforts toward an acquisition of knowledge of the race as one of the human family; and this field was not more inviting to Europeans, for the reduction of the Negro to the status of a tool for exploitation began in Europe. The race did receive attention from pseudo-scientists, a few historians pointed out the possibilities of research in this field, and others brought forward certain interesting sketches of distinguished Negroes exhibiting evidences of the desirable qualities manifested by other races.

There was a new day for the Negro in history after the Civil War. This rending of the nation was such an upheaval that American historians eagerly applied themselves to the study of the ante-bellum period to account for the economic, social, and political causes leading up to this struggle. In their treatment of slavery and abolition, they had to give the Negro some attention. In some cases, therefore, the historians of that day occasionally departed from the scientific standard to give personal sketches of Negroes indicating to some extent the feeling, thought and the aspiration of the whole race. Writers deeply interested in the Negroes at that time wrote eulogistic biographies of distinguished Negroes and of white persons who had devoted their lives to the uplift of the despised race. The attitude in most cases was that the Negroes had been a very much oppressed people and that their enslavement was a disgrace of which the whole country should be made to feel ashamed. As it was the people of the South who had to bear the onus of this criticism and they were not at that time sufficiently enlightened to produce historians like Hildreth, Bancroft, Prescott, Redpath and Parkman, the world largely accepted the opinions of those historians who sympathized with the formerly persecuted Negroes.

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, however, there came about a change in the attitude of American scholarship effected largely by political movements. Because of the unpopularity and the blunders of the southern States reconstructed on the basis of universal suffrage and mainly under the dictation of white adventurers from the North, the majority of the influential men of the country reached the conclusion that the southern white man, in spite of his faults as a slaveholder, had not been properly treated. This unsatisfactory régime, therefore, was speedily overthrown and the freedman was gradually reduced to the status of the free Negro prior to the Civil War on the grounds that it had been proved that he was not a white man with a black skin.

Following immediately thereupon came a new day for education in the South. Many of its ambitious young men went North to study in the leading universities then devoting much attention to the preparation of scholars for scientific investigation. The investigators from the South directed their attention primarily toward the vindication of the slavery régime and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments. As a result there have appeared a number of studies on slavery and the Reconstruction. All of this task was not done by southerners and was not altogether confined to the universities, but resulted no doubt largely from the impetus given it in these centers, especially at Johns Hopkins and Columbia. It was influenced to a great extent by the attitude of southern scholars. Ingle, Weeks, Bassett, Cooley, Steiner, Munford, Trexler, Bracket, Ballagh, Tremain, McCrady, Henry, and Russell directed their attention to the study of slavery. With the works of Deane, Moore, Needles, Harris, Washburn, Dunn, Bettle, Davidson, Hickok, Pelzer, Morgan, Northrop, Smith, Wright, and Turner dealing with slavery in the North, the study of the institution by States has been considered all but complete. In a general way the subject of slavery has been treated by A. B. Hart, H. E. von Holst, John W. Burgess, James Ford Rhodes, and U. B. Phillips.

The study of the Reconstruction has proceeded with renewed impetus and has finally been seemingly exhausted in a way peculiar to the recent investigators. Among these studies are those of Matthews, Garner, Ficklen, Eckenrode, Hollis, Flack, Woolley, Ramsdell, Davis, Hamilton, Thompson, Reynolds, Burgess, Pearson, and Hall, most of whom received their inspiration at Johns Hopkins University or Columbia. The same period has been treated in a general way by W. A. Dunning, John W. Burgess, James Schouler, J. B. MacMaster, James Ford Rhodes and W. L. Fleming. Most of these studies deal with social and economic causes as well as with the political and some of them are in their own way well done. Because of the bias in several of them, however, John R. Lynch and W.E.B. DuBois have endeavored to answer certain adverse criticisms on the record of the Negroes during the Reconstruction period.

Speaking generally, however, one does not find in most of these works anything more than the records of scientific investigators as to facts which in themselves do not give the general reader much insight as to what the Negro was, how the Negro developed from period to period, and the reaction of the race on what was going on around it. There is little effort to set forth what the race has thought and felt and done as a contribution to the world's accumulation of knowledge and the welfare of mankind. While what most of these writers say may, in many respects, be true, they are interested in emphasizing primarily the effect of this movement on the white man, whose attitude toward the Negro was that of a merchant or manufacturer toward the materials he handled and unfortunately whose attitude is that of many of these gentlemen writing the history in which the Negroes played a part as men rather than as coal and iron.

The multiplication of these works adversely critical of the Negro race soon had the desired result. Since one white man easily influences another to change his attitude toward the Negro, northern teachers of history and correlated subjects have during the last generation accepted the southern white man's opinion of the Negro and endeavor to instill the same into the minds of their students. Their position seems to be that because the American Negro has not in fifty years accomplished what the master class achieved in fifty centuries the race cannot be expected to perform satisfactorily the functions of citizenship and must, therefore, be treated exceptionally in some such manner as devised by the commonwealths of the South. This change of sentiment has been accelerated too by southern teachers, who have established themselves in northern schools and who have gained partial control of the northern press. Coming at the time when many Negroes have been rushing to the North, this heresy has had the general effect of promoting the increase of race prejudice to the extent that the North has become about as lawless as the South in its treatment of the Negro.

Following the multiplication of Reconstruction studies, there appeared a number of others of a controversial nature. Among these may be mentioned the works of A. H. Stone and Thomas Pierce Bailey adversely criticizing the Negro and those of a milder form produced by Edgar Gardner Murphy, and Walter Hines Page. Then there are the writings of William Pickens, and W. E. B. DuBois. These works are generally included among those for reference in classes studying Negro life, but they throw very little light on the Negro in the United States or abroad. In fact, instead of clearing up the situation they deeply muddle it. The chief value of such literature is to furnish facts as to sentiment of the people, which in years to come will be of use to an investigator when the country will have sufficiently removed itself from race prejudice to seek after the truth as to all phases of the situation.

The Negro, therefore, has unfortunately been for some time a negligible factor in the thought of most historians, except to be mentioned only to be condemned. So far as the history of the Negro is concerned, moreover, the field has been for some time left largely to those sympathetically inclined and lacking scientific training. Not only have historians of our day failed to write books on the Negro, but this history has not been generally dignified with certain brief sketches as constitute the articles appearing in the historical magazines. For example, the American Historical Review, the leading magazine of its kind in the United States, published quarterly since 1895, has had very little material in this field. Running over the files one finds Jernagan's Slavery and Conversion in the American Colonies, Siebert's Underground Railway, Stevenson's The Question of Arming the Slaves, DuBois's Reconstruction and its Benefits, and several economic studies of the plantation and the black belt by A. H. Stone and U.B. Phillips. It has been announced, however, that the Carnegie Institution for Historical Research will in the future direct attention to this neglected field.

In schools of today the same condition unfortunately obtains. The higher institutions of the Southern States, proceeding doubtless on the basis that they know too much about the Negro already, have not heretofore done much to convert the whites to the belief that the one race should know more about the other. Their curricula, therefore, as a general thing carry no courses bearing on Negro life and history.

In the North, however, the situation is not so discouraging. Some years ago classes in history in northern colleges and universities made a detailed study of slavery and abolition in connection with the regular courses in American history. There has been much neglect in this field during the last generation, since many teachers of history in the North have been converted to the belief in the justice of the oppression of the Negro, but there are still some sporadic efforts to arrive at a better understanding of the Negro's contribution to history in the United States. This is evidenced by the fact that Ohio State University offers in its history department a course on the Slavery Struggles in the United States, and the University of Nebraska one on the Negro Problem under Slavery and Freedom.

This study in the northern universities receives some attention in the department of sociology. Leland Stanford University offers a course on Immigration and the Race Problems, the University of Oklahoma another known as Modern Race Problems. The University of Missouri and the University of Chicago offer The Negro in America; the University of Minnesota, The American Negro; and Harvard University, American Population Problems: Immigration and the Negro. This study of the race problem, however, has in many cases been unproductive of desirable results for the reason that instead of trying to arrive at some understanding as to how the Negro may be improved, the work has often degenerated into a discussion of the race as a menace and the justification of preventative measures inaugurated by the whites.

A few Negro schools sufficiently advanced to prosecute seriously the study of social sciences have had courses in sociology and history bearing on the Negro. Tuskegee, Atlanta, Fiske, Wilberforce and Howard have undertaken serious work in this field. They have been handicapped, however, by the lack of teachers trained to do advanced work and by the dearth of unbiased literature adequate to the desired illumination. The work under these circumstances, therefore, has been in danger of becoming such a discussion of the race problem as would be expected of laymen expressing opinions without data to support them. In the reconstruction which these schools are now undergoing, history and sociology are given a conspicuous place and the tendency is to assign this work to well-informed and scientifically trained instructors. These schools, moreover, are now not only studying what has been written but have undertaken the preparation of scholars to carry on research in this neglected field.

The need for this work is likewise a concern to the enlightened class of southern whites. Seeing that a better understanding of the races is now necessary to maintain that conservatism to prevent this country from being torn asunder by Socialism and Bolshevism, they are now making an effort to effect a closer relation between the blacks and whites by making an intensive study of the Negro. Fortunately too this is earnestly urged by the group of rising scholars of the new South. To carry out this work a number of professors from various southern universities have organized what is called the University Commission on Southern Race Questions. They are calling the attention of the South to the world-wide reconstruction following in the wake of the World War, which will necessarily affect the country in a peculiar way. They point to the fact that almost 400,000 Negroes were called into the military service and thousands of others to industrial centers of the North. Knowing too that the demobilization of the Negroes and whites in the army will bring home a large number of remade men who must be adapted anew to life, they are asking for a general coöperation of the whites throughout the South in the interest of the Negro and the welfare of the land.

These gentlemen are directing this study toward the need of making the South realize the value of the Negro to the community, to inculcate a sympathy for the Negro and to enable the whites to understand that the race cannot be judged by the shortcomings of a few of the group. They are appealing to the country and especially to the scholarly men of the South for more justice and fair play for the Negroes in view of the fact that, in spite of the radical aliens who set to work among the Negroes to undermine their loyalty, the Negroes maintained their morale and supported the war. Men of thought then are boldly urged to engage in this movement for a large measure of thoughtfulness and consideration, for the control of "careless habits of speech which give needless offense and for the practice of just relations. To seek by all practicable means to cultivate a more tolerant spirit, a more generous sympathy, and a wider degree of coöperation between the best elements of both races, to emphasize the best rather than the worst features of interracial relations, to secure greater publicity for those whose views are based on reason rather than prejudice—these, they believe are essential parts of the Reconstruction program by which it is hoped to bring into the world a new era of peace and democracy. Because college men are rightly expected to be molders of opinion, the Commission earnestly appeals to them to contribute of their talents and energy in bringing this program to its consummation."

Among these are James J. Doster, Professor of Education, University of Alabama; David Y. Thomas, Professor of Political Science and History, University of Arkansas; James M. Farr, Professor of English, University of Florida; R. P. Brooks, Professor of History, University of Georgia; William O. Scroggs, Professor of Economics and Sociology, Louisiana State University; William L. Kennon, Professor of Physics, University of Mississippi; E. C. Branson, Professor of Rural Economics, University of North Carolina; Josiah Morse, Professor of Philosophy, University of South Carolina; James D. Hoskins, Dean of the University of Tennessee; William S. Sutton, Professor of Education, University of Texas; and William M. Hunley, Professor of Economics and Political Science, Virginia Military Institute.

    C. G. Woodson.

GRÉGOIRE'S SKETCH OF ANGELO SOLIMANN

The historical setting of this sketch is the life of the author himself. Abbé Grégoire was born in 1750 and died in 1831. He was educated at the Jesuit College at Nancy. He then became Curé and teacher at the Jesuit school at Pont-a-Mousson. In this position he had the opportunity to apply himself to study and soon attained some distinction as a scholar. In 1783 he was crowned by the Academy of Nancy for his Éloge de La poésie and in 1788 by that of Metz for an Essai sur la Régénération physique et morale des Juifs. Throughout his career he exhibited evidences of a breadth of mind and interest in the man far down. When the French Revolution broke out, therefore, he easily became a factor in the upheaval, but endeavored always to restrain the people from fury and vandalism. In 1789, he was elected by the clergy of the bailliage of Nancy to the States-General, where he coöperated with the group of deputies of Jansenist or Gallican sympathies.

He was among the first of the clergy to join the third estate and contributed largely to the union of the three orders. He took an active part in the abolition of the privileges of the nobles of the church and under the new constitution he was one of the first to take oath. In taking this stand, however, he lost the support of most of his fellow churchmen, who, unlike Abbé Grégoire, did not think that the Catholic religion is reconcilable with modern conceptions of political liberty. Because of the changing fortunes of the revolutionists, therefore, Abbé Grégoire finally found himself often deserted and sometimes almost reduced to poverty.