Footnotes:

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 HawkinsCounty. 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 committeein 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.[37]

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.[38]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 representativeswith 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.[39]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 themcolonized. 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.[40]

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."[41]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.[42]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 constitutionseemed 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."[43]One commentator upon his unusual provision observes that one cannot tell how many Negroes were entitled to vote under this provision.[44]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.[45]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.[46]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.[47]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.[48]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."[49]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.[50]

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.[51]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.[52]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.[53]

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.[54]

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.[55]"A free mulatto was good evidence," says he, "against a white person."[56]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 thesocial 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.[57]

It is likely that in East Tennessee there was considerable prevalence of such amalgamation of African and Scotch-Irish race stocks, with white motherhood.[58]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.

Footnotes:[1]Compendium, U. S. Census (1870), pp. 13-15.[2]TheNashville American, "City of Nashville" booklet, p. 20.[3]Garrett and Goodpasture,History of Tennessee, pp. 249 sqq.[4]Ibid., pp. 245-246.[5]Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery Convention, London, 1843.[6]Ibid., p. 300.[7]See paper of E. E. Hoss, Tenn. Hist. Soc., Nashville.[8]Greely, Horace,The American Conflict, p. 79, New York, 1864.[9]Journal of The Constitutional Convention, State of Tennessee, 1834.[10]Journal of Constitutional Convention, 1834.[11]Haywood and Cobb,Statute Laws of Tenn., 1779, Ch. 5.[12]Ibid., 1741, Ch. 21.[13]Ibid., 1788, Ch. 7.[14]Ibid., 1799, Ch. 9.[15]R. T. Q., Jr., State Archives, Capitol Library, Tennessee.[16]This is most natural, of course, but is inserted to emphasize the absolute quality of ownership, for the master was held responsible for the deed just as if he himself had committed it, and the slaves were morally irresponsible. But for other breaches of social good conduct the slave was the direct victim of the penalty, thus at once being slave and man, property and human being.[17]Statute Laws of Tenn., 1819, Chap. 35.[18]Acts, 2d Session Gen. Assembly (Knoxville), 1809.[19]Statute Laws, 1813, Chap. 135.[20]Ibid., 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 1.[21]Ibid., 1801, Ch. 27, Sec. 1.[22]Acts of Gen. Assembly(Tenn.), 1822, Ch. 102.[23]Cf. 1 and 2.[24]Statute Laws, 1831, Ch. 102, Sec. 2.[25]Ibid., Sec. 2.[26]Statute Laws, 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 6.[27]Ibid., 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 23.[28]Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery Convention, London, 1843.[29]Acts of the Gen. Assembly, Tennessee, 1821, Chap. 26.[30]Statute Laws, Tenn., Chap. 6, Sec. 2. Laws of 1787.[31]Statute Laws, Tenn., Chap. 6, Sec. 2, Laws of 1787.[32]Ibid., 1833, Chap. 4, Sec. 1.[33]Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, 1834.[34]Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, pp. 31-40.[35]Ibid., p. 53.[36]Southern Statesman(clipping fromKnoxville Register, Oct., 1831).[37]Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, 1834, pp. 102-104.[38]Ibid., pp. 125-126.[39]Journal Const. Conv.,op. cit., pp. 214 et seq.[40]Tennessee Constitutional Journal, 1834, pp. 126 et seq.[41]Ibid., pp. 184 et seq.[42]Ibid., p. 200, p. 209.[43]Constitution of Tenn., 1834, Art. 3, Sec. 1.[44]Code of Tenn. '57, '58, Sec. 3809.[45]Stephenson,Race Distinctions in American Law, p. 284.Tenn. Const. Conv. Journal, 1834,op. cit., p. 209.[46]Bureau of the Census, "A Century of Pop. Growth," p. 82. Washington, 1909.[47]Acts of Tenn., 1846, Chap. 47 (Nicholson).[48]Code of 1858, Tenn., Art. IV, See. 2725.[49]Ibid., Sec. 2725.[50]Ibid., Sec. 2728.[51]Nicholson,Acts of Tenn., 1846, Chap. 191, Sec. 1.[52]Code of Tenn.,op. cit., Sec. 2714.[53]Ibid., Sec. 2793-2794. Cf. Statute Laws here.[54]Statute Laws, Tenn., 1846, Ch. 191.[55]Brackett, "The Negro in Maryland,"Johns Hopkins Studies, Ch. V, p. 191.[56]Ibid., pp. 191-192.[57]Personal Testimony, B. S.; J. P. Q. E.; E. S. M. Nashville, 1912.[58]{Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

[1]Compendium, U. S. Census (1870), pp. 13-15.

[2]TheNashville American, "City of Nashville" booklet, p. 20.

[3]Garrett and Goodpasture,History of Tennessee, pp. 249 sqq.

[4]Ibid., pp. 245-246.

[5]Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery Convention, London, 1843.

[6]Ibid., p. 300.

[7]See paper of E. E. Hoss, Tenn. Hist. Soc., Nashville.

[8]Greely, Horace,The American Conflict, p. 79, New York, 1864.

[9]Journal of The Constitutional Convention, State of Tennessee, 1834.

[10]Journal of Constitutional Convention, 1834.

[11]Haywood and Cobb,Statute Laws of Tenn., 1779, Ch. 5.

[12]Ibid., 1741, Ch. 21.

[13]Ibid., 1788, Ch. 7.

[14]Ibid., 1799, Ch. 9.

[15]R. T. Q., Jr., State Archives, Capitol Library, Tennessee.

[16]This is most natural, of course, but is inserted to emphasize the absolute quality of ownership, for the master was held responsible for the deed just as if he himself had committed it, and the slaves were morally irresponsible. But for other breaches of social good conduct the slave was the direct victim of the penalty, thus at once being slave and man, property and human being.

[17]Statute Laws of Tenn., 1819, Chap. 35.

[18]Acts, 2d Session Gen. Assembly (Knoxville), 1809.

[19]Statute Laws, 1813, Chap. 135.

[20]Ibid., 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 1.

[21]Ibid., 1801, Ch. 27, Sec. 1.

[22]Acts of Gen. Assembly(Tenn.), 1822, Ch. 102.

[23]Cf. 1 and 2.

[24]Statute Laws, 1831, Ch. 102, Sec. 2.

[25]Ibid., Sec. 2.

[26]Statute Laws, 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 6.

[27]Ibid., 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 23.

[28]Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery Convention, London, 1843.

[29]Acts of the Gen. Assembly, Tennessee, 1821, Chap. 26.

[30]Statute Laws, Tenn., Chap. 6, Sec. 2. Laws of 1787.

[31]Statute Laws, Tenn., Chap. 6, Sec. 2, Laws of 1787.

[32]Ibid., 1833, Chap. 4, Sec. 1.

[33]Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, 1834.

[34]Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, pp. 31-40.

[35]Ibid., p. 53.

[36]Southern Statesman(clipping fromKnoxville Register, Oct., 1831).

[37]Tenn. Constitutional Convention Journal, 1834, pp. 102-104.

[38]Ibid., pp. 125-126.

[39]Journal Const. Conv.,op. cit., pp. 214 et seq.

[40]Tennessee Constitutional Journal, 1834, pp. 126 et seq.

[41]Ibid., pp. 184 et seq.

[42]Ibid., p. 200, p. 209.

[43]Constitution of Tenn., 1834, Art. 3, Sec. 1.

[44]Code of Tenn. '57, '58, Sec. 3809.

[45]Stephenson,Race Distinctions in American Law, p. 284.Tenn. Const. Conv. Journal, 1834,op. cit., p. 209.

[46]Bureau of the Census, "A Century of Pop. Growth," p. 82. Washington, 1909.

[47]Acts of Tenn., 1846, Chap. 47 (Nicholson).

[48]Code of 1858, Tenn., Art. IV, See. 2725.

[49]Ibid., Sec. 2725.

[50]Ibid., Sec. 2728.

[51]Nicholson,Acts of Tenn., 1846, Chap. 191, Sec. 1.

[52]Code of Tenn.,op. cit., Sec. 2714.

[53]Ibid., Sec. 2793-2794. Cf. Statute Laws here.

[54]Statute Laws, Tenn., 1846, Ch. 191.

[55]Brackett, "The Negro in Maryland,"Johns Hopkins Studies, Ch. V, p. 191.

[56]Ibid., pp. 191-192.

[57]Personal Testimony, B. S.; J. P. Q. E.; E. S. M. Nashville, 1912.

[58]{Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

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 whohad 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 isthat 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 ofuse 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, theAmerican 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'sSlavery and Conversion in the American Colonies, Siebert'sUnderground Railway, Stevenson'sThe Question of Arming the Slaves, DuBois'sReconstruction 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 fieldduring 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 theSlavery Struggles in the United States, and the University of Nebraska one on theNegro 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 onImmigration and the Race Problems, the University of Oklahoma another known asModern Race Problems. The University of Missouri and the University of Chicago offerThe 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 andthe 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 underminetheir 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.

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 hisÉloge de La poésieand in 1788 by that of Metz for anEssai 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.

To the end of his career, however, he maintained his attitude of benevolence toward the oppressed. Differing widely from most white men, who although willing to takeradical measures to make democracy safe for themselves, are reluctant to extend its benefits to those of color, Abbé Grégoire earnestly labored in the Constituent Assembly to bring about the emancipation of the Negroes in the French colonies. His interest in persons of African blood, moreover, was not restricted to the mere abolition of slavery because it was a stain on the character of the whites but he endeavored also to elevate the slaves to the full status of citizenship. It was largely through his efforts that men of color in the French colonies were soon after their emancipation admitted to the same civil and political rights as the whites in those dependencies.

He made an effort, moreover, to influence public opinion in behalf of the Negroes in other lands. Having read in Jefferson'sNotes on Virginiahis references to the so-called inferiority of the Negroes, Grégoire sent him a copy of hisDe la Litterature des Nègres. Replying to the communication transmitting this publication Jefferson expressed himself in diplomatic and flattering terms, apparently indicating that he had expressed the opinion of inferiority with much hesitation and that the argument to establish the doctrine was after all rather weak. Writing a few days later to Joel Barlow, Jefferson no doubt expressed his real opinion as to what he thought of the inferiority of the Negro and Grégoire's evidences to the contrary. The pamphlet no doubt had some effect for, "As to Bishop Grégoire," says he, "I wrote him a very soft answer. It was impossible for doubt to have been more tenderly or hesitatingly expressed than there was in theNotes on Virginiaand nothing was or is further from my intentions than to enlist myself as the champion of a fixed opinion where I have only expressed a doubt."

In later years, however, Abbé Grégoire'sDe la Litterature des Nègresfell into the hands of a more sympathetic man. This was D. B. Walden of Brooklyn, New York, then secretary to the legation at Paris. Interested in the abolition of the slave trade and the welfare of the blacks, Waldentranslated Grégoire'sDe la Litterature des Nègres, that friends of the race unacquainted with the French language might have additional information as to what the Negro had done to demonstrate that the race is not intellectually inferior to others. This translation, however, is unfortunate because of the numerous faults throughout the work and largely on account of its omissions. Exactly why the translator did not desire to bring before the American public all of the facts set forth in this book has never been exactly cleared up. It has been said, however, that the facts omitted were too favorable to the Negro race to be received by the American public at that time. The whole work should be translated as soon as some scholar can direct his attention to it, but, in the absence of such an effort, I am submitting herewith a translation of the most striking omission, chapter five, which gives an interesting sketch of the career of Angelo Solimann.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE NEGRO ANGELO SOLIMANN

Although Angelo Solimann has published nothing[1]he deserves, because of his extensive learning and still more by the morality and excellence of his character, one of the first places among the Negroes who have distinguished themselves by a high degree of culture.He was the son of an African prince. The country subject to the latter's domination was called Gangusilang; the family, Magni-Famori. Besides the little Mmadi-Make (this was Angelo's namein his native country) his parents had another younger child, a daughter. He remembered with what respect his father, surrounded by a large number of servants, was treated; he had, like every prince's child of that country, certain marks imprinted on his two legs, and for a long time he hoped that he would be sought for, and recognized by these marks.Even in his old age, the memories of his childhood, of his first practice in shooting arrows, in which he surpassed his comrades, the memory of the simple customs and the beautiful blue sky of his native country, often recurred to his mind with a pleasure not unmixed with sorrow. He could not sing, without being profoundly affected, those songs of his native land which his good memory had very well conserved.It appears, from Angelo's reminiscences, that his tribe already had some civilization. His father possessed many elephants, and even some horses which were rare in those countries; money was unknown, but trade by barter was carried on regularly and by auction. Stars were worshipped; circumcision was usual. Two white families lived in the country.Some writers who have published accounts of their voyages, speak of the perpetual wars between some tribes of Africa, of which the purpose was sometimes vengeance or robbery, sometimes the most ignominious kind of avarice, because the victor took the prisoners to the nearest slave market in order to sell them to the whites. One day as the boy, then seven years old, was standing at the side of his mother who was nursing his sister, a war of this kind of a danger that his father did not suspect broke out against the tribe of Mmadi-Makeé. Suddenly there were heard the frightful clashing of arms and howlings of the wounded. Mmadi-Maké's grandfather, struck by fear, ran into the cabin crying: "There is the enemy." Fatuma, frightened, arose. The father hastily sought his weapon; and the little boy, terrified, ran away as quickly as an arrow. His mother called loudly: "Where are you going Mmadi-Maké?" The child answered: "Wherever God wishes me to go." In his old age he often reflected upon the great significance of these words. When he was out of the cabin, he looked back and saw his mother and many of his father's men fall under the blows of the enemy. He cowered down with another boy under a tree. Struck with fear, he covered his eyes with his hands. The fight continued. The enemy, believing themselvesalready victorious, seized him, and held him aloft as a sign of joy. At this sight, the fellow-countrymen of Mmadi-Maké cheered their forces and rallied to save the son of their king. The fighting began again, and while it lasted the boy was still raised aloft. Finally the enemies were conquerors and he was positively their prize. His master exchanged him for a fine black horse, which another Negro gave him, and the child was taken to the place of embarkation. There he found many of his fellow-countrymen, all like himself, prisoners, all condemned to slavery. With sorrow they recognized him, but they could do nothing for him. They were even forbidden to speak to him.When the prisoners, being taken on small boats, reached the seashore, Mmadi-Maké saw with surprise several large vessels, on one of which he was received with his third master. He supposed that it was a Spanish vessel. After suffering a storm, they landed on a coast, and the master promised the child that he would take him to his mother. The latter, delighted, quickly saw his hope disappear, finding instead of his mother, his master's wife, who, moreover, received him very well, kissed him and treated him with much kindness. Her husband named him Andrew, and directed him to take the camels to the pasture, and watch them.It is impossible to say of what nationality this man was, or how long Angelo, who has now been dead twelve years, lived at his home. This short memoir has been written down recently from the story of his friends. But it is known that after a reasonably long stay, his master announced to him his intention of transporting him to a country where he would be better off. Mmadi-Maké was greatly pleased with this. His mistress parted from him with regret. They embarked and arrived at Messina, where he was conducted to the home of a wealthy lady, who, it appeared, was expecting to receive him. She treated him kindly, gave him an instructor to teach him the language of the country, which he learned with ease. His good nature won for him the friendship of the numerous servants, among whom he singled out a Negress, named Angelina, because of her gentleness, and her kindly attitude towards him. He became dangerously ill; the Marchioness, his mistress, gave him all the care of a mother, even to the point of sitting up with him part of the night. The most skillful physicians were called in and his bed was surrounded by a crowd of persons who awaited his orders. The Marchioness had long wished that hewould be baptized. After repeated refusals, one day, during his convalescence, he himself asked for baptism. His mistress, very much delighted, ordered the most elaborate preparations. In a parlor there was erected over a stately bed a canopy richly embroidered. The entire family and all the friends of the house were present. Mmadi-Maké, lying on this bed, was asked concerning the name he desired to have. Because of gratitude and his friendship for the Negress Angelina, he wished to be named Angelo. His desire was granted, and as a family name he was given that of Solimann. He was accustomed to celebrate piously the day of his entrance into Christianity, the eleventh of September, as though it were his birthday.His goodness, his kindness, and his sense of justice made him dear to every one. The Prince Lobkowitz, then in Sicily in the capacity of imperial general, frequented the house where this child lived. He experienced for him such an affection that he made the most earnest entreaties that he be given to him. Because of her affection for Angelo, the Marchioness could not easily grant his request. She finally yielded to the considerations of advantage and prudence which impelled her to make this gift to the general. How she wept when she parted with the little Negro who entered with repugnance the service of a new master.The duties of the prince did not permit a long stay in this country. He loved Angelo, but his manner of life and perhaps the spirit of the time caused him to give very little attention to his education. Angelo became wild and ill-tempered. He passed his days in idleness, and children's sports. An old steward of the prince, realizing his good heart and excellent qualities, in spite of his thoughtlessness, procured for him a teacher, under whom Angelo learned in seventeen days to write German. The tender affection of the child, and his rapid progress in all the branches of instruction, repaid the good old man for his trouble.Thus Angelo grew up in the house of the prince. He accompanied him on all his tours, and shared with him the perils of war. He fought side by side with his master, whom one day he carried wounded, on his shoulders, from the field of battle. Angelo distinguished himself on these occasions, not only as a servant and faithful friend, but also as an intrepid warrior, as an experienced officer, especially in tactics, although he never had military rank. The field marshall Lascy, who esteemed him highly, gave, before a group of officers, a most creditable eulogy upon his bravery, presentedhim with a splendid Turkish sabre, and offered him the command of a company, which he refused.His master died. By his will he left Angelo to the Prince Wenceslas de Lichtenstein, who for a long time, had desired to have him. This man asked Angelo if he were satisfied with this arrangement and if he were willing to come to his home. To this Angelo agreed, and made the preparations for the change necessary in his manner of living. In the meanwhile, Emperor Francis I called him to him, and made the same offer, with very flattering terms. But the word of Angelo was sacred. He remained at the home of Prince Lichtenstein. Here, as at the home of General Lobkowitz, the tutelar genius of unhappy persons, he was accustomed to convey to the prince the requests of those who wished to obtain some favor. His pockets were always filled with notes and petitions. Never being able or willing to ask favors for himself, he fulfilled with equal zeal and success this duty in favor of others.Angelo followed his master on his journeys, and to Frankfort, at the time of the coronation of Emperor Joseph, as king of the Romans. One day, at the instigation of his prince, he tried his luck at chance and won twenty thousand florins. He played another game with his opponents, who again lost twenty-four thousand florins; in playing the second game, Angelo knew how to arrange the play so finely that the loser regained the last amount. This fine trait of Angelo won for him admiration, and gained for him numerous congratulations. The transient favor of chance did not dazzle him; on the contrary, apprehending his fickleness, he never again ventured any big sum. He amused himself with chess and had the reputation of being one of the best players of this game of his time.At the age of —— he married a widow, Madame de Christiani, née Kellerman, of Belgium origin. The prince did not know of this marriage. Perhaps Angelo had reasons for concealing it. A later event has justified his silence. The Emperor Joseph II, who had a lively interest in everything concerning Angelo and who, as a mark of distinction, even walked arm in arm with him, made known to Prince Lichtenstein one day, without foreseeing the consequences, Angelo's secret. The latter called Angelo, and questioned him. Angelo admitted his marriage. The prince announced that he would banish him from his house, and erase his name from his will. He had intended to give him some diamondsof considerable value, with which Angelo was accustomed to being decked when he followed his master on festive days.Angelo, who had asked favors so often for others, did not say one word for himself. He left the palace to live in a distant suburb, in a small house bought a long time before, and transferred to his wife. He lived with her in this retreat, enjoying domestic happiness. The most careful education of his only daughter, Madame the Baroness of Hoüchters-leöen, who is no longer living, the cultivation of his garden, the social intercourse of several learned and estimable men, were his occupations and his pleasures.About two years after the death of Prince Wenceslas of Lichtenstein, his nephew and heir, the Prince Francis, saw Angelo in the street. He ordered his carriage to be stopped, had him enter it, and told him that, being convinced of his innocence, he was resolved to make amends for the injustice of his uncle. Consequently he assigned to Angelo an income revertible after his death to Madam Solimann. The only thing which the prince asked of Angelo was to supervise the education of his son, Louis of Lichtenstein.Angelo fulfilled punctiliously the duties of his new vocation, and he went daily to the prince's home, in order to watch over the pupil recommended to his care. The Prince, seeing that the long walk might be difficult for Angelo, especially in inclement weather, offered him a residence. There again was Angelo settled, for the second time, in the Lichtenstein palace; but he took with him his family. He lived there in retreat as before in the company of some friends, in that of scholars, and devoted to "belles lettres" which he constantly cultivated with zeal. His favorite study was history. His excellent memory aided him greatly. He could cite the names, dates, year of birth of all illustrious persons, and noteworthy events.His wife, who for a long time had been declining, was kept alive several years longer, through the tender care of a husband who lavished upon her all the aid of science; but finally she died. From that time on Angelo made several changes in his household. He no longer invited friends to dine with him. He never drank anything except water as an example for his daughter, whose education, then finished, was entirely his work. Perhaps, also, he wished, by a strict economy to make sure the fortune of this only daughter.Angelo, esteemed and loved everywhere, still did much traveling at an advanced age, sometimes in the interests of others, sometimesto attend to his own affairs. People have recalled his acts of kindness, and the favors that he had shown. Circumstances having taken him to Milan, the late Archduke Ferdinand, who was governor there, overwhelmed him with demonstrations of friendship.He enjoyed, to the end of his career, a robust constitution; his appearance showed hardly any signs of old age, which caused several mistakes and friendly disputes; for often people who had not seen him for twenty or thirty years, mistook him for his son, and treated him according to this error.Suffering a stroke of apoplexy in the street, at the age of seventy-five, people hastened to give him succor which was useless. He died, November 21, 1796, mourned by all his friends, who cannot think of him without emotion, and without tears. The esteem of all men of consequence has followed him to the tomb.Angelo was of medium stature, slender and well proportioned. The regularity of his features and the nobleness of his carriage, form, by their beauty, a contrast with the unfavorable opinion generally held concerning the Negro physiognomy. An unusual suppleness in all bodily exercises gave to his carriage and to his movements grace and ease. Combining with all the fineness of virtue a good judgment, ennobled by extensive and thorough knowledge, he knew six languages, Italian, French, German, Latin, Bohemian, and English, and besides spoke especially the first three fluently.Like all his fellow countrymen, he was born with an impetuous temper. His unchangeable calmness and good nature were consequently so much the more admirable, as they were the result of hard fighting and many victories won over himself. He never allowed, even when someone had irritated him, an improper expression to escape his lips. Angelo was pious without being superstitious. He carefully observed all religious rites, not believing that it was beneath him to give in this way an example to his family. His word and decisions, to which he had come after careful consideration, were unchangeable, and nothing could swerve him from his intention. He always wore the costume of his country. This was a kind of very simple garment in Turkish fashion almost always of dazzling whiteness, which accentuated to advantage the black and shining color of his skin. His picture, engraved at Augsburg, is found in the art gallery of Lichtenstein.

He was the son of an African prince. The country subject to the latter's domination was called Gangusilang; the family, Magni-Famori. Besides the little Mmadi-Make (this was Angelo's namein his native country) his parents had another younger child, a daughter. He remembered with what respect his father, surrounded by a large number of servants, was treated; he had, like every prince's child of that country, certain marks imprinted on his two legs, and for a long time he hoped that he would be sought for, and recognized by these marks.

Even in his old age, the memories of his childhood, of his first practice in shooting arrows, in which he surpassed his comrades, the memory of the simple customs and the beautiful blue sky of his native country, often recurred to his mind with a pleasure not unmixed with sorrow. He could not sing, without being profoundly affected, those songs of his native land which his good memory had very well conserved.

It appears, from Angelo's reminiscences, that his tribe already had some civilization. His father possessed many elephants, and even some horses which were rare in those countries; money was unknown, but trade by barter was carried on regularly and by auction. Stars were worshipped; circumcision was usual. Two white families lived in the country.

Some writers who have published accounts of their voyages, speak of the perpetual wars between some tribes of Africa, of which the purpose was sometimes vengeance or robbery, sometimes the most ignominious kind of avarice, because the victor took the prisoners to the nearest slave market in order to sell them to the whites. One day as the boy, then seven years old, was standing at the side of his mother who was nursing his sister, a war of this kind of a danger that his father did not suspect broke out against the tribe of Mmadi-Makeé. Suddenly there were heard the frightful clashing of arms and howlings of the wounded. Mmadi-Maké's grandfather, struck by fear, ran into the cabin crying: "There is the enemy." Fatuma, frightened, arose. The father hastily sought his weapon; and the little boy, terrified, ran away as quickly as an arrow. His mother called loudly: "Where are you going Mmadi-Maké?" The child answered: "Wherever God wishes me to go." In his old age he often reflected upon the great significance of these words. When he was out of the cabin, he looked back and saw his mother and many of his father's men fall under the blows of the enemy. He cowered down with another boy under a tree. Struck with fear, he covered his eyes with his hands. The fight continued. The enemy, believing themselvesalready victorious, seized him, and held him aloft as a sign of joy. At this sight, the fellow-countrymen of Mmadi-Maké cheered their forces and rallied to save the son of their king. The fighting began again, and while it lasted the boy was still raised aloft. Finally the enemies were conquerors and he was positively their prize. His master exchanged him for a fine black horse, which another Negro gave him, and the child was taken to the place of embarkation. There he found many of his fellow-countrymen, all like himself, prisoners, all condemned to slavery. With sorrow they recognized him, but they could do nothing for him. They were even forbidden to speak to him.

When the prisoners, being taken on small boats, reached the seashore, Mmadi-Maké saw with surprise several large vessels, on one of which he was received with his third master. He supposed that it was a Spanish vessel. After suffering a storm, they landed on a coast, and the master promised the child that he would take him to his mother. The latter, delighted, quickly saw his hope disappear, finding instead of his mother, his master's wife, who, moreover, received him very well, kissed him and treated him with much kindness. Her husband named him Andrew, and directed him to take the camels to the pasture, and watch them.

It is impossible to say of what nationality this man was, or how long Angelo, who has now been dead twelve years, lived at his home. This short memoir has been written down recently from the story of his friends. But it is known that after a reasonably long stay, his master announced to him his intention of transporting him to a country where he would be better off. Mmadi-Maké was greatly pleased with this. His mistress parted from him with regret. They embarked and arrived at Messina, where he was conducted to the home of a wealthy lady, who, it appeared, was expecting to receive him. She treated him kindly, gave him an instructor to teach him the language of the country, which he learned with ease. His good nature won for him the friendship of the numerous servants, among whom he singled out a Negress, named Angelina, because of her gentleness, and her kindly attitude towards him. He became dangerously ill; the Marchioness, his mistress, gave him all the care of a mother, even to the point of sitting up with him part of the night. The most skillful physicians were called in and his bed was surrounded by a crowd of persons who awaited his orders. The Marchioness had long wished that hewould be baptized. After repeated refusals, one day, during his convalescence, he himself asked for baptism. His mistress, very much delighted, ordered the most elaborate preparations. In a parlor there was erected over a stately bed a canopy richly embroidered. The entire family and all the friends of the house were present. Mmadi-Maké, lying on this bed, was asked concerning the name he desired to have. Because of gratitude and his friendship for the Negress Angelina, he wished to be named Angelo. His desire was granted, and as a family name he was given that of Solimann. He was accustomed to celebrate piously the day of his entrance into Christianity, the eleventh of September, as though it were his birthday.

His goodness, his kindness, and his sense of justice made him dear to every one. The Prince Lobkowitz, then in Sicily in the capacity of imperial general, frequented the house where this child lived. He experienced for him such an affection that he made the most earnest entreaties that he be given to him. Because of her affection for Angelo, the Marchioness could not easily grant his request. She finally yielded to the considerations of advantage and prudence which impelled her to make this gift to the general. How she wept when she parted with the little Negro who entered with repugnance the service of a new master.

The duties of the prince did not permit a long stay in this country. He loved Angelo, but his manner of life and perhaps the spirit of the time caused him to give very little attention to his education. Angelo became wild and ill-tempered. He passed his days in idleness, and children's sports. An old steward of the prince, realizing his good heart and excellent qualities, in spite of his thoughtlessness, procured for him a teacher, under whom Angelo learned in seventeen days to write German. The tender affection of the child, and his rapid progress in all the branches of instruction, repaid the good old man for his trouble.

Thus Angelo grew up in the house of the prince. He accompanied him on all his tours, and shared with him the perils of war. He fought side by side with his master, whom one day he carried wounded, on his shoulders, from the field of battle. Angelo distinguished himself on these occasions, not only as a servant and faithful friend, but also as an intrepid warrior, as an experienced officer, especially in tactics, although he never had military rank. The field marshall Lascy, who esteemed him highly, gave, before a group of officers, a most creditable eulogy upon his bravery, presentedhim with a splendid Turkish sabre, and offered him the command of a company, which he refused.

His master died. By his will he left Angelo to the Prince Wenceslas de Lichtenstein, who for a long time, had desired to have him. This man asked Angelo if he were satisfied with this arrangement and if he were willing to come to his home. To this Angelo agreed, and made the preparations for the change necessary in his manner of living. In the meanwhile, Emperor Francis I called him to him, and made the same offer, with very flattering terms. But the word of Angelo was sacred. He remained at the home of Prince Lichtenstein. Here, as at the home of General Lobkowitz, the tutelar genius of unhappy persons, he was accustomed to convey to the prince the requests of those who wished to obtain some favor. His pockets were always filled with notes and petitions. Never being able or willing to ask favors for himself, he fulfilled with equal zeal and success this duty in favor of others.

Angelo followed his master on his journeys, and to Frankfort, at the time of the coronation of Emperor Joseph, as king of the Romans. One day, at the instigation of his prince, he tried his luck at chance and won twenty thousand florins. He played another game with his opponents, who again lost twenty-four thousand florins; in playing the second game, Angelo knew how to arrange the play so finely that the loser regained the last amount. This fine trait of Angelo won for him admiration, and gained for him numerous congratulations. The transient favor of chance did not dazzle him; on the contrary, apprehending his fickleness, he never again ventured any big sum. He amused himself with chess and had the reputation of being one of the best players of this game of his time.

At the age of —— he married a widow, Madame de Christiani, née Kellerman, of Belgium origin. The prince did not know of this marriage. Perhaps Angelo had reasons for concealing it. A later event has justified his silence. The Emperor Joseph II, who had a lively interest in everything concerning Angelo and who, as a mark of distinction, even walked arm in arm with him, made known to Prince Lichtenstein one day, without foreseeing the consequences, Angelo's secret. The latter called Angelo, and questioned him. Angelo admitted his marriage. The prince announced that he would banish him from his house, and erase his name from his will. He had intended to give him some diamondsof considerable value, with which Angelo was accustomed to being decked when he followed his master on festive days.

Angelo, who had asked favors so often for others, did not say one word for himself. He left the palace to live in a distant suburb, in a small house bought a long time before, and transferred to his wife. He lived with her in this retreat, enjoying domestic happiness. The most careful education of his only daughter, Madame the Baroness of Hoüchters-leöen, who is no longer living, the cultivation of his garden, the social intercourse of several learned and estimable men, were his occupations and his pleasures.

About two years after the death of Prince Wenceslas of Lichtenstein, his nephew and heir, the Prince Francis, saw Angelo in the street. He ordered his carriage to be stopped, had him enter it, and told him that, being convinced of his innocence, he was resolved to make amends for the injustice of his uncle. Consequently he assigned to Angelo an income revertible after his death to Madam Solimann. The only thing which the prince asked of Angelo was to supervise the education of his son, Louis of Lichtenstein.

Angelo fulfilled punctiliously the duties of his new vocation, and he went daily to the prince's home, in order to watch over the pupil recommended to his care. The Prince, seeing that the long walk might be difficult for Angelo, especially in inclement weather, offered him a residence. There again was Angelo settled, for the second time, in the Lichtenstein palace; but he took with him his family. He lived there in retreat as before in the company of some friends, in that of scholars, and devoted to "belles lettres" which he constantly cultivated with zeal. His favorite study was history. His excellent memory aided him greatly. He could cite the names, dates, year of birth of all illustrious persons, and noteworthy events.

His wife, who for a long time had been declining, was kept alive several years longer, through the tender care of a husband who lavished upon her all the aid of science; but finally she died. From that time on Angelo made several changes in his household. He no longer invited friends to dine with him. He never drank anything except water as an example for his daughter, whose education, then finished, was entirely his work. Perhaps, also, he wished, by a strict economy to make sure the fortune of this only daughter.

Angelo, esteemed and loved everywhere, still did much traveling at an advanced age, sometimes in the interests of others, sometimesto attend to his own affairs. People have recalled his acts of kindness, and the favors that he had shown. Circumstances having taken him to Milan, the late Archduke Ferdinand, who was governor there, overwhelmed him with demonstrations of friendship.

He enjoyed, to the end of his career, a robust constitution; his appearance showed hardly any signs of old age, which caused several mistakes and friendly disputes; for often people who had not seen him for twenty or thirty years, mistook him for his son, and treated him according to this error.

Suffering a stroke of apoplexy in the street, at the age of seventy-five, people hastened to give him succor which was useless. He died, November 21, 1796, mourned by all his friends, who cannot think of him without emotion, and without tears. The esteem of all men of consequence has followed him to the tomb.

Angelo was of medium stature, slender and well proportioned. The regularity of his features and the nobleness of his carriage, form, by their beauty, a contrast with the unfavorable opinion generally held concerning the Negro physiognomy. An unusual suppleness in all bodily exercises gave to his carriage and to his movements grace and ease. Combining with all the fineness of virtue a good judgment, ennobled by extensive and thorough knowledge, he knew six languages, Italian, French, German, Latin, Bohemian, and English, and besides spoke especially the first three fluently.

Like all his fellow countrymen, he was born with an impetuous temper. His unchangeable calmness and good nature were consequently so much the more admirable, as they were the result of hard fighting and many victories won over himself. He never allowed, even when someone had irritated him, an improper expression to escape his lips. Angelo was pious without being superstitious. He carefully observed all religious rites, not believing that it was beneath him to give in this way an example to his family. His word and decisions, to which he had come after careful consideration, were unchangeable, and nothing could swerve him from his intention. He always wore the costume of his country. This was a kind of very simple garment in Turkish fashion almost always of dazzling whiteness, which accentuated to advantage the black and shining color of his skin. His picture, engraved at Augsburg, is found in the art gallery of Lichtenstein.

F. Harrison Hough.

Back to Index Next