Footnotes:

There was in fact throughout this entire period a remarkable paradox in the social mind of the North with regard to the Negro, for we find everywhere the strongest antipathy to the Negro personally and general discriminations against him socially and politically, united with the greatest enthusiasm for his rights in the abstract. Even the best spirits of the time did not escape it. FannyKemble relates of John Quincy Adams, who became the very head and front of the anti-slavery element in Congress,[305]that while discussing with her at a Boston dinner-party the Shaksperean heroine Desdemona, he asserted "with a most serious expression of sincere disgust, that he considered all her misfortunes as a very just judgment upon her for having married a 'nigger.'"[306]About the time when Garrisonian abolition was at its high tide, when Wendell Phillips was placing Toussaint l'Ouverture above Caesar and Napoleon on the roll of fame, when Whittier, Longfellow, and Lowell were lending their talents to the cause of unalterable and inalienable rights of mankind, Jesse Chickering published a "Statistical View of the Population of Massachusetts from 1765 to 1840," at the end of which he appended some very interesting facts and conclusions as to the colored population of this State. He stated that, owing partly to their race traits and partly to fixed and immovable prejudices of the whites against them, the blacks are deprived of sympathy and social enjoyments and reduced to a servile and degraded condition of poverty and dependence (p. 137). Because of this widespread prejudice against their color, "they cannot obtain employment on equal terms with the whites, and wherever they go a sneer is passed upon them, as if this sportive inhumanity were an act of merit.... Thus, though their legal rights are the same as those of the whites, their condition is one of degradation and dependence." In spite of the vigorous agitation for the rights of the Negro which stirred New England and the entire nation at this time, the writer says "the prejudices which are now felt in this Commonwealth against the people of color and the disadvantages under which they labor ... we can hardly expect will soon be removed," though he is persuaded that "this want of true sympathy, and this sense of degradation, must operate on their sensibility and unfavorably affect their physical, moral, and social condition, and shorten to them the duration of life" (pp. 156, 157).

The anti-slavery movement in Pennsylvania never went to the rhapsodical extremes we find in Massachusetts. It was from beginning to end sane and reasonable and yet vigorous and unremittent. Nevertheless, we find the same enthusiasm for the rights of the Negro in the abstract combined with racial antipathy, social and political discriminations, and even on more than one occasion mob violence in the actual treatment of the Negro population of the State.[307]Pennsylvania's interest in slavery, because of her position just to the north of slaveholding States, was never allowed to lag even after she had set all her slaves free. Her Negro population was constantly being replenished from the South and largely by fugitive slaves. This brought about much friction with Maryland, owing to the unwillingness of Pennsylvanians to surrender the runaways. In spite of Federal law the spirit of freedom made it unsafe for owners to hunt for their escaped slaves in Pennsylvania, as the famous Christiana riot of 1851 shows, and brought the State to the verge of nullification,[308]to such extremes were a peaceful and yet liberty-loving people ready to go in their championship of the abstract rights of the oppressed slave.

But while this was true, there is abundant evidence to show that by the masses of the people the Negro was thoroughly disliked, persecuted and relegated to an inferior social status by no means in harmony with the doctrine of the inalienable and unalterable rights of man. Negroes were set upon in the streets, beaten, cut and even stoned to death in sheer wanton cruelty. In 1831 the refusal of New Haven, Connecticut, to establish a Negro college was enthusiastically endorsed in resolutions passed at a public meeting in Philadelphia, and in 1834, 1835, 1838, 1842 and 1849 this city was distracted by riots directed against the Negroes. The houses of the Negroes were sacked, their inmates beaten and mobs of whites and blacks fought through the streets with clubs and stones.[309]"A careful study of each of theseriots," says Turner, "makes inevitable the deduction that the deep underlying cause which made every one of them possible, and which prepared them long before they burst forth, was a fierce, and at least among the lower classes, an almost universal, hatred of the negro himself."

How are we to explain this contradiction in dealing with the Negro? Why did Pennsylvanians mob him, disfranchise him from 1838 to 1873, seek to get rid of him by colonization and yet hide him from his master and resolutely refuse to close to him the door of freedom even in the face of Federal laws? The answer is one of fundamental importance for the comprehension of the status of the Negro in the social consciousness of the nation now as well as then. The people of Pennsylvania had been educated for generations in the great traditions of freedom. These traditions had their roots in the religious emancipation of the reformation and gradually extended to the political sphere and became endeared to the hearts of all Americans through the struggle with Great Britain. Pennsylvanians had little special love for the Negro but they loved these traditions dearly. In a healthy democracy these traditions are inseparably united in the thought of the average citizen with the personal sense of liberty. To violate them is to violate that which lends validity to his own conviction of his right to be free.

It will be said, of course, that in the social and political restrictions placed upon the Negro as an actual member of the community, these lofty ideals were negated. Rights that are granted in theory but are denied in the actual give and take of social contacts are not true rights. This was undoubtedly the case. But to register this criticism does not by any means exhaust the situation. For these so-called inalienable rights are not something that the individual is born heir to as he is to his father's fortune. They are his inalienably only by virtue of his potentiality for realizing them and as such they exist only as possible forms of self-activity, functions which by common consensus of opinion are conceded to each individual. In a very real sense, therefore,they must be won or created by each for himself. The individual or the group, which through ignorance or inefficiency or thriftlessness or racial discrimination is incapacitated for measuring up to the demands of an aggressive and virile democracy, will inevitably find these inalienable and unalterable rights merely a name so far as they are concerned. Actual social status in existing American democracy is the result of a balance of forces one of which is the individual's power of self-assertion. Inder Kampf um's Rechtthe community imagines it has done its utmost when it insists upon fair play. There was also the inevitable friction due to the close contact of diverse race groups. The Negro population of Pennsylvania was larger than that of any other northern State. The presence of thousands of members of a different race, to whom complete social assimilation through intermarriage was refused, and who represented different standards of living and lower industrial efficiency, led inevitably to group conflicts.

Just on the eve of the Civil War, therefore, the theoretical status assigned the Negro in the social consciousness of the North and the one very soon to be assured to him throughout the entire nation in Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, insisted that he be included in those broad and somewhat indefinite categories of rights embodied in our national political symbols. The enthusiasm for these is to be explained not so much from the objective and eternal nature of the rights themselves as from the feeling that they represent a phase of common social experience of fundamental importance for society as a whole. Previous training in democratic traditions made men capable of the noblest self-sacrifice in their loyalty to these ideas of freedom and equality, but the fact of their being associated with the enslaved Negro was accidental. No sooner had they assisted the runaway slave to freedom than they forgot him. He was left to make good in the autonomous,laissez faireatmosphere of a vigorous democracy. Soon, however, his economic helplessness and inefficiency, his ignorance of thetense northern life aroused the same men who had helped him to freedom to the realization that he was of an alien race, with characteristics that made his social assimilation difficult. Where the blacks were present in large numbers the situation was fraught with the gravest difficulties of social adjustment. These were facts not encouraging for the future of the two races in the nation. They should have taught men that emancipation, instead of solving the problem, would plunge the nation and particularly the South into a situation the infinite difficulties of which were never dreamed of by the enthusiastic champions of abstract human rights. DeTocqueville's language, though written almost thirty years before thedébâclecame, sounds like a veritable prophecy. He felt that national abolition was bound to come in the course of events. "I am obliged to confess," he says however, "that I do not regard the abolition of slavery as a means of warding off the struggle of the two races in the United States," for abolition will inevitably "increase the repugnance of the white population for the men of color."[310]

It is well to remember, when we come to examine the status of the Negro in the slave States, that slavery would naturally follow lines of development determined by the economic, social and climatic conditions of the sections concerned. These conditions, of course, vary greatly throughout a region stretching from Maryland to Texas. As late as the famous Dred Scott case, when slavery was limited to the South, Justice Curtis could say, "the status of slavery embraces every condition from that in which the slave is known to the law simply as a chattel, with no civil rights, to that in which he is recognized as a person for all purposes, save the compulsory power of directing and receiving the fruits of his labor. Which of these conditions shall attend the status of slavery, must depend upon the municipal law which creates and upholds it."[311]A comparative study of the legislation of all the slave States with regard to theNegro both as slave and free will very clearly reveal the effect of these varying conditions in the several States concerned.[312]Nothing is more necessary to a calm and unprejudiced study of the institution of slavery than the realization of this fact.

What then were the economic, climatic and social conditions in the South which contributed to shape the attitude of the social mind of the section toward the Negro? The dominant feature of the social and economic life of the South of ante bellum days was the plantation. This was the industrial unit comprising usually large land areas, worked by slaves divided into groups, under strict supervision, with a fixed routine of labor in the production of special commodities such as tobacco, rice, sugar-cane or cotton. Two types of plantation life developed even before the Revolution, the Virginian and the West Indian, the latter confined at first to the coast line of South Carolina and later covering the "Black Belt" of the far South. The term "plantation" was originally synonymous with colony. Virginia was the "plantation of the London Company"[313]but was later broken up into smaller economic units which retained the name. By the beginning of the eighteenth century the prevailing industrial system in Virginia and Maryland was these small plantations or farms where Negro slaves gradually took the place of white redemptioners and the prevailing staple was tobacco. About the end of the seventeenth century the Jamaican or West Indian type of plantation was introduced on the coast region around Charleston. It consisted of larger estates cultivated by thirty or more slaves, with few or no white laborers, the master and his family often being the only whites present the year around. Fanny Kemble's "Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation," 1838-39, gives an interesting though somewhat sombre picture of the conditions prevailing on the rice plantations near Darien, Georgia.

Slavery, as an industrial institution, has flourished only in countries with great natural resources, easy of access and affording ready means of sustenance. The crops cultivated must be simple, such as tobacco, rice or cotton, and hence admitting of easy mastery by the slave as well as the efficient organization and direction of gangs of laborers. The soil must be very fertile and unlimited in extent to assure a profit on the unskilled routine labor of the slave, which makes rotation of the crops impossible and soon exhausts the soil so that the worn out lands must be abandoned for new. The industrial cycle passed through by the great slave-estates of the West Indies finds a parallel in the South, where the speedy exhaustion of a fertile soil with the resulting necessity for a more scientific and intensive agriculture, impossible under slavery, forced slaveholders to open up new lands constantly. Hence the insatiable land hunger of the slave power.[314]

There is evidence that at the end of the colonial period the older lands of Virginia and Maryland, where slavery and the plantation system had long existed, were approaching a period of decay. This was the logical result of slavery. An industrial readjustment was taking place involving the decline of the plantation system and with it the decline of slavery. It was at this juncture that the fate of slavery, and with it the destiny of the entire southwestern region, was determined by a new factor, namely, the rise of the cotton culture. But for the invention of the cotton-gin, and the improvements in cotton manufacture that accompanied it, the economic forces already militating against the patriarchal form of slavery in Virginia would doubtless have brought about in time its peaceful abolition. As it was, these discoveries created an industrial basis for the fostering of slavery more dangerous than any pro-slavery legislation had been and more sweeping and insidious than anti-slavery agitators could possibly imagine. It opened up forthe cultivation of the cotton plant the vast fertile region extending from eastern North Carolina through South Carolina, middle Georgia and Alabama to Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas[315]. Here were found all the conditions mentioned above as necessary to the success of slavery.

Within this vast region, however, there were variations of climate and soil which made certain sections better adapted to slavery and the plantation system than others. Between the foothills just to the south of the Appalachian mountains and the flat sandy levels of the sea coast lay a central rich alluvial region called the "black belt" at first after the color of its soil and later after the color of the majority of its inhabitants. This section was peculiarly well suited to the growth of the cotton plant and here, after the pell-mell of immigration which poured into the southwest with the development of cotton culture began to take on the forms of a fixed social order, arose those large cotton plantations which were the central feature of southern ante-bellum civilization. The "black belt" included virtually the whole of South Carolina, a strip through central Georgia and south-central Alabama and the rich alluvial lands along the Mississippi and Red rivers in the States of Mississippi and Louisiana. Here the large plantations gradually absorbed the lands of the frontiersmen and small farmers who had preceded them and spread over all the lands where the gang labor of the slave system could be prosecuted with profit[316].

This slave aristocracy of the "black belt," which determined the social standards and shaped the morals and directed the political policies of the South, was composed of a few powerful families who through their wealth, social standing and talents for leadership controlled the destinies of a vast section. Perhaps 500,000 out of a total white population of 9,000,000 profited by slavery in 1860, but out of thisnumber some ten thousand families, including such familiar names as Hampton, Rutledge, Brooks, Hayne, Lee, Mason, Tyler, Wise, Polk, Breckenridge and Claibourne, really determined the policies of the South[317]. Beneath the slave aristocracy were ranged the other elements of society. First among these came the small farmers, often owning a few slaves. Though having occupied the land first, they were gradually crowded out by the competition of the large slaveholders, who bought up their lands and forced them to occupy the foothills to the north of the "black belt" in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi which were ill adapted to the plantation slave system. Next came the thriftless and impecunious whites, variously known as the "pine-landers" and "crackers" in Georgia, the "sand-hillers" of South Carolina, or the "red-necks" of Mississippi. The lowest stratum was composed of slaves with a slight intermixture of free Negroes.

Bagehot remarks that slavery "creates a set of persons born to work that others may not work, and not to think in order that others may think. Therefore, slave-owning nations, having time to think, are likely to be more shrewd in policy, and more crafty in strategy[318]." This is amply illustrated in the case of southern leaders. The sons of the slaveholders received the best education the land could afford; the plantation life gave a training in administration and leadership and with leisure and natural political talent they looked to public life for advancement. Those who showed ability in local or State governments were advanced to the House or Senate so that by a process of natural selection the slave-power at the South was able to develop leaders, who not only moulded the public sentiment of the South itself but shaped the policies of the nation for the better part of half a century[319].

Thus, by a slow process of evolution, was built up in the"black belt" of the South an industrial empire, based upon slavery, nominally democratic, but in reality an oligarchy composed of a group of talented men, united in their traditions, social standards and political ideals by virtue of their common loyalty to the "peculiar institution" of their section. It was democratic within its own limits, chivalrous, cultured although it cherished ideals essentially at variance with democratic institutions and bound in time to give birth to a social consciousness that was incompatible with that entertained by the rest of the nation. When the slave-power was defeated at the polls in the election of 1860, secession was the logical result.

The status of the Negro, both slave and free, was intimately associated with this economic development of the far South. There is much to indicate that the entire South gradually underwent a profound change of attitude towards slavery in the three decades from 1800 to 1830. Slavery was generally looked upon as an evil by the southern leaders of the time of the constitutional convention and for two decades afterwards, perhaps. Mason of Virginia in the debates of 1787 stated that slavery discouraged the arts and manufactures, prevented immigration of whites, exercised a most pernicious effect upon manners, made every master a petty tyrant and would bring the judgment of heaven down upon the country. Baldwin, speaking for Georgia, said that "If left to herself, she may probably put an end to the evil[320]." Jefferson's expressions against slavery were many and pronounced[321], and there is reason for thinking that these ideas were shared by many even in the far South. An editorial in theMilledgeville Journalof Georgia, January 1, 1817, has this remarkable language: "With such a hint from a distinguished philosopher (i. e., Jefferson), shall we not merit execration, if we fail to provide in time an adequate remedy for this great and growing evil, an evil which isalways staring us in the face—which obtrudes so frequently upon us in spite of ourselves, the most gloomy and awful apprehension[322]." As late as 1826, when Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, asserted before the House that slavery was sanctioned by religion, John Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, replied: "Sir, I envy neither the head nor the heart of that man from the North who rises here to defend slavery from principle[323]."

Apparently the first assertion of the usefulness and beneficence of the institution from a southern man of political repute came from the governor of South Carolina in 1830[324]. How then are we to explain the profound change of sentiment indicated by the leading papers of the South just before the war?The Richmond Enquirer, September 6, 1855, asserts: "Every moment's additional reflection but convinces us of the absolute impregnability of the Southern position on this subject. Facts, which can not be questioned, come thronging in support of the true doctrine—that slavery is the best condition of the black race in this country, and that the true philanthropists should rather desire that race to remain in the state of servitude, than to become free with the privilege of becoming worthless." TheRichmond Examiner, 1854, advises all southern men to act "as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant in letters of fire that the negro is here, and here forever; is our property and ours forever; is never to be emancipated; is to be kept hard at work, and in rigid subjection all his days[325]." TheDaily Intelligencer, of Atlanta, January 9, 1860, states editorially: "Whenever we see a negro, we presuppose a master and if we see him in what is commonly called a 'free state' we consider him out of his place. This matter of manumission, or emancipation, now thank heaven less practiced than formerly, is a species of false philanthropy, which we look upon as a cousin german to Abolitionism—badfor the master, worse for the slave." Calhoun pronounced slavery "the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions[326]." Hammond claimed, in a eulogy of slavery in the Senate, March 4, 1858, that its "frame of society is the best in the world." Jefferson Davis defended it as "a form of civil government for those who by nature are not fit to govern themselves";[327]Mason, a descendant of the great Mason of revolutionary days, described it as "ennobling to both races."[328]

It is useless to try to explain these statements by attributing to their authors moral perverseness; the explanation must be sought in the conditions that surrounded them. We have already alluded to the fact that our moral conceptions are absorbed from the social milieu in which we are reared. The prevailing ideals of family, business, the social, political or national group of which we happen to be members we absorb as part of our "social copy" and build into the fabric of our social selves. The larger the group and the more vital any given ideal is considered by the group as a whole the greater will be its hold upon the loyalty of the individual member. Everything conspired to give to the social sanction of the slave-aristocracy an authoritativeness and binding force without a parallel in the history of the nation. Upon the basis of the slave as the industrial unit was reared in the course of years a mass ofmoreswhich conditioned the entire world-view of the slave-owner. Economic methods, social differentiations, political institutions, religious ideals, moral values, local patriotism and pride, all took their color from the "peculiar institution" of the section. To question its validity or to deny its divine authority was to threaten the entire social order with anUmwerthung aller Werthethat to the southern mind was unthinkable. The increase of the slave population and the ever widening gap between white and black made it all the harder for the white to consider schemes for emancipation or manumissionwhich meant economic and social chaos. The weight of accumulated traditions, the hardening of social habits and even the constantly increasing economic handicaps of the ruinous slave-labor made any change more difficult and dangerous. Many, who would gladly be rid of slavery, found themselves in the predicament described by Jefferson, "We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go."[329]

The status of the slave was determined directly by the rise of the slave-power and on the whole shows, as was to be expected, a tendency to treat the slave more and more as a chattel or, as Aristotle would say, a "living tool." The general drift of the slave codes of the various southern States was to negate the personality of the slave and to fix his status as a part of an industrial system. The earliest of the slave laws to be passed were of the nature of police regulations, restricting the personal liberties of the blacks.[330]Of peculiar interest are the laws with regard to emancipation and the status of the free Negro, for the latter was a standing rebuke to slavery and a fruitful source of discontent among the slaves. In 1822 a Charleston writer says, "We look upon the existence of the Free Blacks among us as the greatest and most deplorable evil with which we are unhappily afflicted.... Our slaves when they look around them and see persons of their own color enjoying a comparative degree of freedom and assuming privileges beyond their own condition, naturally become dissatisfied with their lot, until the feverish restlessness of this disposition foments itself into insurrection and the 'black flood of long retained spleen' breaks down every principle of duty and obedience."[331]

As early as 1800 South Carolina prohibited free Negroes and mulattoes from entering the State. In 1822 they were required to have a guardian and in 1825 were forbidden theuse of firearms. By an act of 1841 emancipation of slaves was made unlawful and in 1860 free Negroes were required to wear badges with their name and occupation.[332]In many States emancipation was made unlawful and in Arkansas by an act of 1858 all free Negroes and mulattoes were required to leave the State or be sold as slaves.[333]About 1830, and probably as a result of abolition activity, acts were passed in practically all the southern States prohibiting even the elementary forms of education to the slave and placing heavy penalties upon whites who violated it. Thus the status of the free Negro tended always to approximate that of the slave. Moreover, a study of the evolution of the slave codes of each State shows a gradual narrowing of the sphere of the slave and a general drift towards the principle expressed in South Carolina law that "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to bechattels personalin the hands of their owners and possessors and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever."[334]

So far then as the relations of master and slave went, the law gave the former complete control over the slave's time and labor, his food and clothing, punishment, together with the right to turn him over to an agent or sell his labor. The slave had no property rights in law, could be sold, mortgaged, leased or disposed of in payment of debt; the slave could not be party in a legal action against his master, could not redeem himself, change his master or make a contract. His status was hereditary and perpetual both for himself and his children. In his civil status no slave could be a witness against a white or be a party to a suit; he was deprived of the benefits of education and in some States of religious instruction also.[335]The actual status of the slave was, of course, subject to the varying conditions of the different sectionsof a wide area of country, the status of the slave on a Virginia or North Carolina farm being very different from that of the field hand on a sugar or cotton plantation of the far South. The slaveholders also were to a very large extent a law unto themselves. "On our estates," says DeBow, "we dispense with the whole machinery of public police and public courts of justice. Thus we try, decide, and execute the sentences in thousands of cases, which in other countries would go into the courts."[336]Fanny Kemble describes how she made use of this autonomous position of the slaveholder on her own plantation to teach her slave Aleck to read in violation of the law.[337]This explains the great extremes in southern slavery and the mistakes of writers who judge the institution as a whole by extreme cases.[338]

Our conclusion as to the effect upon the Negro himself of slavery will depend largely upon whether we stress his previous savage estate and the gain made through contact with a superior civilization or the inherent evils of slavery itself and their effect upon his character. That the transition from African savagery to slavery was a gain for the Negro in many respects will hardly be denied.[339]The field hand of the plantation of the far South doubtless retained many of his most primitive savage traits. Olmsted, an unprejudiced observer, describes him as on the average a very poor and a very bad creature, "clumsy, awkward, gross and elephantine in movement ... sly, sensual and shameless in expression and demeanor." "He seems to be but an imperfect man, incapable of taking care of himself in a civilized manner, and his presence in large numbers must be considered a dangerous circumstance to a civilized people."[340]And yet he testifies that slavery improved the African Negro.[341]

The most beneficial effects were noticeable where the slave came in constant contact with the whites. For this reason the household slaves manifested a degree of intelligence and initiative far above that of the untutored field hand; this contact with the white was in effect an involuntary education. This appeared even in dress. "For though their own native taste," says Kemble, "is decidedly both barbarous and ludicrous, it is astonishing how very soon they mitigate it in imitation of their white models." The mulattoes in Charleston were often as well dressed as the whites.[342]The best witness to the benefits derived from slavery was the fact that for a generation after emancipation the older Negroes who received their training under the old regime made the most faithful and consistent laborers when set free.[343]

There were, however, other effects of slavery which offset its advantages. The slave had no true home life and without this it is impossible to train personality and character. The father felt no responsibility for children that were not really his but his master's. The mother merely discharged the animal functions of bearing and rearing the child, all the finer instincts of motherhood being prostituted to a selfish commercial end. The slave-mother, of course, did not feel the pathos of the situation when pointing to her children she said: "Look missis! little niggers for you and massa; plenty little niggers for you and little missis." The slave lived perpetually in an atmosphere of fawning and flattery by no means conducive to the development of independent manhood either in himself or his master. Being outside those social sanctions which keep the free man honest and trustworthy he was often guilty of petty theft and deceit and the law recognized the logical results of his status upon his character by refusing to take the word of a slave against a freeman. The slave had no social standing and no respect for himself or his fellow slaves and henceexercised unbounded insolence and tyranny towards his fellows. This gave to the social intercourse between slaves a flavor of vulgarity and insincerity utterly incompatible with the development of the finer instincts of personality.[344]

The essential injustice of slavery lies in withholding the legitimate use of those means for self-development which are the inalienable right of every creature born with potentialities for personality. It becomes a national crime when the public conscience in any age recognizes in a group or an individual potentialities for the exercise of rights or the discharge of social functions with a rational regard for the well-being of society as a whole, and yet through powerful class interests refuses to give legal recognition to those rights. The paradox of the slaveholder's position and the fundamental injustice of it appear even in the slave codes and the arguments used in defense of the "peculiar institution." The slave codes treated the slave in one clause as a chattel, an irrational thing, and yet proceed to embody in the same code regulations against learning to read and write, theft, and murder, thus acknowledging that the slave is both rational and moral. Laws against teaching slaves were passed in South Carolina in 1834, in Georgia, 1829, Louisiana, 1829, Alabama, 1830 and Virginia, 1849.

As a result of this negation of his personality the slave thought and acted solely in terms of the social mind of the white. Hence the prevailing idea of the slave, "massa can do no wrong."[345]The slave had no social consciousness, no ethical code apart from that of the white master; his self-determining powers of personality had no scope for expression or development. He looked down with infinite scorn upon the "poor white trash" which had no entrée into his master's circle and he pitied the free Negro because his lack of a master gave him no social standing. To have a Negro overseer was a disgrace. Olmsted overheard the following conversation between two Negroes: "Workin' in a tobacco factory all de year roun', an' come Christmas, only twentydollars! Workin' mighty hard too—up to twelve o'clock o'night very often—an' den to hab a nigger oberseah!" "A nigger!" "Yes dat's it yer see. Wouldn't care ef it warn't for dat.Nothin' but a dirty nigger! orderin' 'round, jes' as ef he was a wite man."[346]To be sure, on the basis of this submerged status of the slave, ties of the greatest intimacy and affection often grew up between master and slave. But the slave's personality was absorbed by that of his master. Petty thefts, deceits and delinquencies of the slave were excused because it was all in the family. The master even felt his slave's acts to be morally his own and condoned them as he would his own foibles. It should never be forgotten that when the Negro made the transition from the artificial and quasi-social status of the slave to a free democratic order, where individual worth and social efficiency determine one's place in society, he was like a child taught to swim with bladders and suddenly deprived of them.

"Jove fixed it certain, that whatever dayMakes man a slave, takes half his worth away."

John M. Mecklin.

Footnotes:[291]Turner,op. cit., p. 14 ff.[292]Moore,op. cit., p. 10; Johnson,op. cit., p. 18.[293]"Economic and Social History of New England," 1620-1789, II, pp. 450, 451.[294]Dabney, "Defence of Virginia," p. 58.[295]Locke,op. cit., Ch. V.[296]Turner,op. cit., p. 87.[297]"Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts," pp. 241, 242.[298]Moore,op. cit., pp. 228 ff.[299]"Diary," p. 149.[300]No exaggeration! See Turner, "The Negro in Pennsylvania," pp. 146, 147.[301]"Democracy in America," I, pp. 361 ff.[302]See Steiner, "History of Slavery in Connecticut," pp. 45 ff. for the famous instance of the Quakeress, Miss Prudence Crandall, and her school.[303]"Society in America," 1, pp. 193-196.[304]"Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation," p. 11.[305]Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," pp. 256 ff.[306]Journal, p. 86.[307]See Turner's excellent account, "The Negro in Pennsylvania," Chs. IX-XIII.[308]Turner, pp. 242, 245.[309]Ibid., pp. 160 ff. for details.[310]"Democracy in America," I, pp. 379 ff.[311]19 Howard's R., p. 624, quoted by Hurd, "Law of Freedom and Bondage," I, p. 358, see also pp. 321 ff. of Hurd.[312]Hurd, I, pp. 217 ff., for the colonial legislation and II, Chs. XVII, XVIII, XIX, for subsequent legislation in the different states and territories.[313]"Documentary History of American Industrial Society," I, p. 75.[314]"Documentary History of American Industrial Society," I, p. 91. See also Cairnes, "The Slave Power," pp. 52 ff.; Nieboer, "Slavery as an Industrial System," pp. 417 ff.[315]For an account of the growth of the cotton industry see Baines, "History of the Cotton Manufacture," pp. 116 ff. See also DuBois, "Suppression of the Slave Trade," pp. 151 ff.[316]Phillips, "Origin and Growth of the Southern 'black belts,'" pp. 798 ff., Vol. XI ofThe American Historical Review.[317]Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," pp. 67 ff.[318]"Physics and Politics," p. 73, ed. of 1896; Ingram, "History of Slavery," p. 5.[319]Rhodes, I, pp. 347 ff.[320]Livermore, "An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers," pp. 56 ff.[321]Foley, "The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia," secs. 7926 ff.[322]"Documentary History of American Industrial Society," II, p. 158.[323]Greeley, "The American Conflict," I, p. 109.[324]Stroud, "A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," p. vi.[325]Quoted by Olmsted, "Seaboard Slave States," I, pp. 334, 335.[326]"Wks.," II, 632.[327]Speech in Senate, Feb. 29, 1860.[328]Cong. Globe, 39 Cong., 1st Session, pp. 557, 596.[329]Foley, "Jeffersonian Cyclopedia," sec. 7933.[330]Hurd,op. cit., II, pp. 5, 83, 105, 150, etc.[331]E. C. Holland, "A Refutation of the Calumnies Circulated against the Southern and Western States Respecting the Institution and Existence of Slavery among Them," p. 83, Charleston, 1822.[332]Hurd,op. cit., II, 95 ff.[333]Ibid., II, 174.[334]Stroud,op. cit., p. 11; see also Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom," II, 92, and Rhodes, I, p. 369, for similar statements to the effect that the slave was personal property.[335]Stroud,op. cit., pp. 12, 44.[336]"Industrial Resources," II, 249, quoted by Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," p. 112.[337]Journal, pp. 230 ff.[338]This varying attitude of the master class has been extensively treated by C. G. Woodson in his "Education of the Negro Prior to 1861."[339]Tillinghast's "The Negro in Africa and America," pp. 106 ff.[340]Op. cit., II, pp. 12, 13.[341]II, pp. 108, 118.[342]Journal, pp. 25, 44, 180; Olmsted, "Seaboard Slave States," I, p. 390.[343]B. T. Washington, "Future of American Negro," pp. 54 ff. for a negro's witness to industrial training acquired in slavery.[344]Kemble,op. cit., pp. 60 ff., 29, 134, 153, 239, 263.[345]Lewis, "Journal of a West India Proprietor," 404.[346]Op. cit., I, p. 114.

[291]Turner,op. cit., p. 14 ff.

[292]Moore,op. cit., p. 10; Johnson,op. cit., p. 18.

[293]"Economic and Social History of New England," 1620-1789, II, pp. 450, 451.

[294]Dabney, "Defence of Virginia," p. 58.

[295]Locke,op. cit., Ch. V.

[296]Turner,op. cit., p. 87.

[297]"Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts," pp. 241, 242.

[298]Moore,op. cit., pp. 228 ff.

[299]"Diary," p. 149.

[300]No exaggeration! See Turner, "The Negro in Pennsylvania," pp. 146, 147.

[301]"Democracy in America," I, pp. 361 ff.

[302]See Steiner, "History of Slavery in Connecticut," pp. 45 ff. for the famous instance of the Quakeress, Miss Prudence Crandall, and her school.

[303]"Society in America," 1, pp. 193-196.

[304]"Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation," p. 11.

[305]Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," pp. 256 ff.

[306]Journal, p. 86.

[307]See Turner's excellent account, "The Negro in Pennsylvania," Chs. IX-XIII.

[308]Turner, pp. 242, 245.

[309]Ibid., pp. 160 ff. for details.

[310]"Democracy in America," I, pp. 379 ff.

[311]19 Howard's R., p. 624, quoted by Hurd, "Law of Freedom and Bondage," I, p. 358, see also pp. 321 ff. of Hurd.

[312]Hurd, I, pp. 217 ff., for the colonial legislation and II, Chs. XVII, XVIII, XIX, for subsequent legislation in the different states and territories.

[313]"Documentary History of American Industrial Society," I, p. 75.

[314]"Documentary History of American Industrial Society," I, p. 91. See also Cairnes, "The Slave Power," pp. 52 ff.; Nieboer, "Slavery as an Industrial System," pp. 417 ff.

[315]For an account of the growth of the cotton industry see Baines, "History of the Cotton Manufacture," pp. 116 ff. See also DuBois, "Suppression of the Slave Trade," pp. 151 ff.

[316]Phillips, "Origin and Growth of the Southern 'black belts,'" pp. 798 ff., Vol. XI ofThe American Historical Review.

[317]Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," pp. 67 ff.

[318]"Physics and Politics," p. 73, ed. of 1896; Ingram, "History of Slavery," p. 5.

[319]Rhodes, I, pp. 347 ff.

[320]Livermore, "An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers," pp. 56 ff.

[321]Foley, "The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia," secs. 7926 ff.

[322]"Documentary History of American Industrial Society," II, p. 158.

[323]Greeley, "The American Conflict," I, p. 109.

[324]Stroud, "A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," p. vi.

[325]Quoted by Olmsted, "Seaboard Slave States," I, pp. 334, 335.

[326]"Wks.," II, 632.

[327]Speech in Senate, Feb. 29, 1860.

[328]Cong. Globe, 39 Cong., 1st Session, pp. 557, 596.

[329]Foley, "Jeffersonian Cyclopedia," sec. 7933.

[330]Hurd,op. cit., II, pp. 5, 83, 105, 150, etc.

[331]E. C. Holland, "A Refutation of the Calumnies Circulated against the Southern and Western States Respecting the Institution and Existence of Slavery among Them," p. 83, Charleston, 1822.

[332]Hurd,op. cit., II, 95 ff.

[333]Ibid., II, 174.

[334]Stroud,op. cit., p. 11; see also Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom," II, 92, and Rhodes, I, p. 369, for similar statements to the effect that the slave was personal property.

[335]Stroud,op. cit., pp. 12, 44.

[336]"Industrial Resources," II, 249, quoted by Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," p. 112.

[337]Journal, pp. 230 ff.

[338]This varying attitude of the master class has been extensively treated by C. G. Woodson in his "Education of the Negro Prior to 1861."

[339]Tillinghast's "The Negro in Africa and America," pp. 106 ff.

[340]Op. cit., II, pp. 12, 13.

[341]II, pp. 108, 118.

[342]Journal, pp. 25, 44, 180; Olmsted, "Seaboard Slave States," I, p. 390.

[343]B. T. Washington, "Future of American Negro," pp. 54 ff. for a negro's witness to industrial training acquired in slavery.

[344]Kemble,op. cit., pp. 60 ff., 29, 134, 153, 239, 263.

[345]Lewis, "Journal of a West India Proprietor," 404.

[346]Op. cit., I, p. 114.

If one is making a collection of striking contrasts betweenwhat once was, but now is, he should certainly include in this list the Preparatory High School established for Negro youth in the National Capital, November, 1870, and the beautiful new Dunbar High School which was dedicated January 15, 1917. It is indeed a far cry from the basement of the Presbyterian Church in which this first Preparatory High School was located and the magnificent brick, stone-trimmed building of Elizabethan architecture with a frontage of 401 feet which was recently christened the Dunbar High School in honor of the poet, Paul Laurence Dunbar. This new school represents an outlay of more than a half a million dollars. The ground cost the government $60,000, the building and equipment $550,000, and it is considered one of the most complete and beautiful institutions for Negro youth in the country.[347]There is a faculty of 48 teachers,many of them being graduates from the leading colleges and universities of the country, and 1,252 pupils are enrolled, 545 boys and 707 girls.

It would have required a vivid and fertile imagination indeed for a pupil who attended that first high school to have dreamed of an institution so comprehensive and efficient as the high school of to-day. In fact, the first high school for Negro youth was not a high school at all. It was, as its name indicated, a Preparatory High School established in 1870. It was mainly composed of pupils completing the last two years of the grammar grades, although, according to the school report of that year, a small number of students were pursuing the high school course.[348]The new institution labored under several decided disadvantages. In the first place, the teaching force was inadequate, as there was only one instructor for 45 pupils. Sufficient time for advanced studies was not given and the school suffered also from the loss of pupils employed to meet the growing demand for teachers in the lower grades.[349]

The first class would have graduated in 1875, but the demand for teachers being so much greater than the supply, the first two classes were drawn into the teaching corps, before they had completed the prescribed course.[350]It was notuntil 1877, therefore, that the first high school commencement was held, eleven pupils being awarded diplomas. These were Dora F. Baker, Mary L. Beason, Fannie M. Costin, Julia C. Grant, Fannie E. McCoy, Cornelia A. Pinckney, Carrie E. Taylor, Mary E.M. Thomas, James C. Craig, John A. Parker, and James B. Wright. Three members of this class are now teaching in the Washington public schools. Of the capabilities of the pupils and conditions of the school, Superintendent Newton in his annual report said: "The progress which has been made in the organization and the perfecting of an efficient school system in a brief period has probably few parallels in any part of the country. The capabilities of the pupils in general for acquiring knowledge have been demonstrated to be not inferior to those of any children in the country."[351]

The first principal of the Preparatory High School was Miss Emma J. Hutchins, a native of New Hampshire. Like many white men and women who came from the North at that time, Miss Hutchins was fired with zeal to do everything in her power to educate and uplift the youth of the newly emancipated race. She served as principal of the O Street, now the John F. Cook, School and was then placed in charge of the Preparatory High School in 1870. After teaching here one year, Miss Hutchins resigned to accept a position in Oswego County, New York. There was no dissatisfaction on the part of either Miss Hutchins or of the people whom she served, but she resigned, because, as she said, there were among the Negroes themselves teachers thoroughly equipped to take up the work and carry it on and she could find employment elsewhere. From one who knew her personally comes the statement, "Miss Hutchins' term of service in the Washington public schools was brief, but the impress she made upon those with whom she came into contact has remained indelibly fixed through the years that have followed. High ideals, conscientious performance of duty under adverse conditions and loyalty to theinterest of her pupils—hers was indeed the spirit of the true teacher."

In the third report of the Board of Trustees the Public Schools Superintendent, George F. T. Cook, tells us: "The pupils first transferred to this Preparatory High School, as well as those for two or three subsequent years, had completed only the sixth year of the seven required for the completion of the school course at that time—hence the name Preparatory High School." But the superintendent recommended that the transfer of small classes of pupils in the first grade of the grammar course from the several school districts be discontinued, and that in lieu thereof there be two central grammar schools for the accommodation of all pupils in the last year of the grammar course—one to be located in the Summer or Stevens building and the other in the Lincoln building. This was intended to bring into the high school only those pupils pursuing advanced studies. The object of this Preparatory High School, according to Mr. Cook, was twofold: "to economize teaching force by concentrating under one teacher several small classes of the same grade of attainment, located in different parts of the city, and to present to the pupils of the schools incentives to higher aim in education. In both respects," says he, "it has been eminently successful, perhaps more so in the latter, since it has furnished to the teacherships of these schools and those of the surrounding country many teachers."[352]

In the fall of 1871 Miss Mary J. Patterson succeeded Miss Hutchins as principal of the high school, which was then located in the Stevens building on 21st Street during that year. Miss Patterson was graduated from Oberlin College with the degree of A.B. in 1862. So far as the records show, she has the distinction of being the first woman, of African blood, to receive a college education. When Miss Patterson attended Oberlin College, she took what was called thegentleman's course, which required a studyof not only Latin and Greek, but the higher mathematics as well. It doubtless received the namegentleman's course, because at that time women did not as a rule pursue such studies. It is easy to imagine what an impetus and an inspiration such a woman would be at the head of a new school established for the youth of a race for which high standards and lofty ideals had to be set. She was a woman with a strong, forceful personality, and showed tremendous power for good in establishing high intellectual standards in the public schools. Thoroughness was one of Miss Patterson's most striking characteristics as a teacher. She was a quick, alert, vivacious and indefatigable worker. During Miss Patterson's administration, which lasted altogether twelve years, three important events occurred: the name "Preparatory High School" was dropped; in 1877, the first high school commencement was held; and the normal department was added with the principal of the high school as its head.

After Miss Patterson had served one year as principal, Mr. Richard T. Greener was appointed in 1872 to take her place. As Miss Patterson was the first woman of color to be graduated from Oberlin College, so Mr. Greener has the distinction of being the first man of African descent to be thus honored by Harvard College. He received his preparatory education in Boston, Oberlin and Cambridge, and was graduated from Harvard in 1870. A scholar and lawyer by profession, Mr. Greener has attracted attention by his essays and orations. He has held a number of important positions, having served as Professor in the University of South Carolina in the Reconstruction period, Dean of the Law School of Howard University, Chief Civil Service Examiner for New York City, and United States Consul at Vladivostock, Russia. After serving as principal of the high school nearly one year, Mr. Greener left it for fields of broader opportunity. Miss Patterson was then reappointed principal of the Preparatory High School and held the position till 1884, when Mr. F. L. Cadozo, Sr., succeeded her.

When Mr. F.L. Cardozo, Sr., was appointed to the principalship of the high school, the standard of scholarship required of the principals was certainly maintained. For he had the rare distinction of being educated at Glasgow University, Glasgow, Scotland. There he won two scholarships of $1,000 each in Greek and Latin. He also took a course in the London School of Theology, London, England, where he completed the three-year course in two years. He was once pastor of the Tremont Street Congregational Church, New Haven, Connecticut. Later he went to Charleston, South Carolina, where he engaged in missionary work in the employ of the American Board of Missions. Mr. Cardozo founded the Avery Institute in Charleston, and served as its principal until he became Treasurer of the State of South Carolina, in 1870. Under Governor Chamberlain he was Secretary of State for two terms.[353]

At that time there were 172 pupils in the school, but by 1886 the enrollment was 247, which was more than five times what it was when the school was established. In 1887-88, when the enrollment was 361, there were nine teachers, exclusive of the instructors in music and drawing. There was an increase of two teachers in 1888-89. From 1877 to 1894 the high school course consisted of three years' work. But in 1894 the course was enriched and enlarged by the addition of several electives and since then it has been lengthened to four years. The commercial department was established in 1884-85 and in 1887 a business course requiring two years of study was added. This with a technical course also requiring two years of study laid the foundation of the Armstrong Manual Training School. Girls were given an opportunity of taking up domestic science and boys military drill.[354]Referring to the school in 1889-90 Superintendent Cook said: "This school is growing, not only in number but in a condition to perform better and more useful work. In the practical importance of subjectstaught and in their better and increasing provision for preparing pupils for business life there is recognition of the fact that practical usefulness is the great end of intellectual discipline."[355]

It was during Mr. Cardozo's administration that the high school was moved from the Miner building to a new structure in 1891. So far back as 1874 Mr. Cook urged the construction of a suitable building for the high school. But it was not until 1889-90 that an appropriation therefor was made.[356]This building, known as the M Street High School, was erected on M Street, near the intersection of New York and New Jersey Avenues, where the institution remained until it moved into the Dunbar.

In 1896 Dr. W. S. Montgomery was appointed principal of the M Street High School and held that position for three years. Dr. Montgomery was graduated at Dartmouth College, receiving the degree of A.B. in 1879 and the degree of A.M. in 1906. He completed the Howard University medical course in 1884. From the time Dr. Montgomery was appointed principal of the Hillsdale School in 1875 till the present, with the exception of two years spent in study at Dartmouth, he has served the public school system of the District of Columbia continuously.[357]In referring to his principalship of the M Street High School, one of his co-laborers states that it "was marked by a period of constructive work. He stood for high scholarship with a leaning toward the classical high school."

Judge Robert H. Terrell succeeded Dr. Montgomery in 1899. He was the second principal of the high school to hold a degree from Harvard College. When a boy, he was a pupil in the public schools of the District of Columbia and was a member of one of the early classes in the old Preparatory High School. Mr. Terrell finished his preparation for college at Lawrence Academy, Groton, Massachusetts and was graduated from Harvard University in the class of 1884. In the fall of that year he was appointed a teacher in the high school and held that position for five years. In the fall of 1889 he was appointed chief of a division in the United States Treasury Department, where he served four years. In the meantime Mr. Terrell had studied law. He practiced that profession till 1889, when he was again appointed teacher in the high school. He was afterward promoted to the principalship. In 1902 President Roosevelt nominated him for a judgeship of one of the City Courts of Washington and Mr. Terrell resigned the principalship to accept this position. While serving as principal of the high school Mr. Terrell devoted much of his time out of school to preparing his boys for college. It is largely due to his influence that a goodly number of its graduates have completed their education at Harvard.

Mrs. Anna J. Cooper was appointed Judge Terrell's successor and served from 1901 till 1906. Mrs. Cooper prepared for college at the St. Augustine Normal School. Like Miss Patterson, Mrs. Cooper was graduated at Oberlin College, receiving the degrees A.B. in 1884 and A.M. in 1888. With the exception of a few years Mrs. Cooper has taught in the public schools from 1887 to the present time. She is the author of "A Voice from the South," which received most complimentary notices in representative newspapers and magazines. During her administration in 1904 the course of study for the M Street High School like that of the other academic high schools was considerably changed and greatly enlarged.

Mr. William Tecumseh Sherman Jackson succeeded Mrs.Cooper in 1906. He was educated at Amherst College which conferred upon him the degrees of A.B. in 1892 and A.M. in 1897. He thereafter pursued postgraduate studies at the Catholic University of America. Mr. Jackson's twenty-five years of service have all been in the high school. He was teacher of mathematics from 1892 to 1904, principal of M Street High School from 1906 to 1909 and has been head teacher in the Department of Business Practice from 1912 to the present time. In commenting upon Mr. Jackson's work, one of his superior officers declared that he "introduced the individual promotion system, stimulated interest in athletics and fostered the school spirit."

Mr. Edward Christopher Williams succeeded Mr. Jackson as principal of the M Street High School in 1909. He was graduated from the Central High School in Cleveland, Ohio, holds the degree of B.L. from the Western Reserve University, and an honor certificate from the New York State Library School. He was Librarian of the Western Reserve University from 1894 to 1909, and was instructor in bibliographical subjects in the Western Reserve University Library School from 1904 to 1909. After serving seven years as principal of the M Street High School, he resigned June, 1916, to accept a position in Howard University as Librarian and Director of the Library School. Mr. Williams achieved success as an administrative officer while principal of the M Street High School.

Mr. G. C. Wilkinson, the present principal of this school, was educated in the public schools of the District of Columbia, finishing the course at the M Street High School in June, 1898. He was graduated from Oberlin, with the degree of A.B. in 1902, and from the Law Department of Howard University in 1909. In 1902 he was appointed teacher in the M Street High School and discharged his duties in the new field of action with enthusiasm and zeal. During these years Mr. Wilkinson devoted much of his time after school hours to the training and instructing of athletic teams, particularly football and baseball, at a time when physicaltraining for high school boys was not an established part of the regular curriculum. This interest was not confined to M Street High School only but extended to all secondary schools of the vicinity and resulted in the formation of the Inter-Scholastic Athletic Association of the Middle Atlantic States under whose auspices track meets and basket ball were first introduced into the capital of the nation. Thus athletic interest was extended, until they were registered in the Amateur Athletic Union of America as the first and at present the only football officials of color in America. Mr. Wilkinson was equally active in assisting the military organization of the high school. In November, 1912, Mr. Wilkinson was promoted to the principalship of the Armstrong Manual Training School and transferred to the principalship of the Dunbar High School, July 15, 1916.

It is safe to assert that at the head of no school in the United States have there been teachers who have availed themselves of better educational advantages than have the principals of the high school for the education of Negroes in the District of Columbia. In looking over the list one observes that of the ten principals, who have guided and molded the school, two held degrees from Harvard University, three from Oberlin College, one from Dartmouth, one from Amherst, one from Western Reserve University, and one was educated in the University of Glasgow in Scotland.

Back to Index Next