FOOTNOTES:

Each slave from Louisiana$580Each slave from Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama390Each slave from Maryland, Virginia and other States280

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arnett G. Lindsay

FOOTNOTES:[1]This dissertation is the result of the researches of Mr. A. G. Lindsay under Dr. C. G. Woodson at Howard University during the academic year 1919-1920 and was submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in candidacy for the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. C. G. Woodson was the chairman of this committee.The following sources were used in the preparation of this manuscript:American State Papers, Foreign Relations;American State Papers, Confidential Documents;American State Papers, Wait's Edition;Annals of Congress;Diary of John Quincy Adams, in hisMemoirs;Diplomatic Correspondence; Force,American Archives;Journals of Congress;Journals of Continental Congress; McDonald'sSource Book of American History;Niles Register;Treaties and Conventions, Edition 1889;United States Statutes at Large.The following works were also consulted: John Adams,Works; Van Tyne,The American Revolution;American Historical Association Reports; Babcock,Rise of American Nationality; Benton,Naval History of England; Channing,History of the United States; Ford,Washington's Writings; Ford,Jefferson's Writings; Fiske,Critical Period; Gibb,Administrations of Washington and Adams;The Journal of Negro History; Morse,John Adams;Naval Chronicle of England; Ramsay,History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809; Sparks,Washington; Moore,International Arbitration; Moore,Digest of International Law; Wharton,Digest of International Law, Edition, 1887; Halleck,Elements of Law; Wheaton,Elements of Law, Edition, by Dana.[2]Ramsay,History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809, Vol. I, pp. 474-475.[3]American Historical Association, Vol. I, p. 273. F. A. Ogg,American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 304.[4]Moore,International Arbitrations, p. 350.[5]Van Tyne,American Revolution, p. 61; Force,American Archives, 4th Series, III, 1385.[6]Proclamation—"Whereas the enemy have adopted a practice of enrolling Negroes among their troops, I do hereby give Notice that all Negroes taken in Arms or upon any military Duty shall be purchased for the public service at a stated price; the money to be paid to the captors. But I do most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim right over any Negroes the property of a Rebel who may take refuge with any part of this Army. And I do promise to every Negro who shall desert the Rebel Standard full Security to follow within the Lines any occupation which he may think proper." Given under my Hand at Headquarters, Phillipsburg, the 30th day of June, 1799.H. Clinton.By his Excellency's CommanderJohn Smith, Sec.Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26; Van Tyne,American Revolution.[7]Force,American Archives, I, 486, Fifth Series.[8]Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26.[9]Ramsay,History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809, I, 474.[10]Moore'sHistorical Notes, 14;Journal of Negro History, Vol. I, p. 117.[11]Jefferson's Works, Vol. II, p. 426.[12]Sparks,Washington's Works, III, 218.[13]Channing'sHistory of the United States, Vol. III, pp. 348-369.[14]American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, p. 273.[15]Article 7, Treaty of Paris.—"There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, and from every port, place and harbour within the same; leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds and papers belonging to any of the said states or their citizens which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong."McDonald,Documentary Source Book of American History, p. 208.[16]American Historical Association Report, 1874, p. 421. Waits,American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 279.[17]Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, pp. 411-422.[18]Sparks,Washington, Vol. VIII, Appendix, p. 544.[19]Washington to Daniel Parker in Ford'sWashington's Writing, X, 246-247.[20]Ford's Edition ofJefferson's Writings, p. 127.[21]Journal of Negro History, Vol. II, p. 417.[22]Ford,Washington's Writings, X, 241-243.[23]Journal of Negro History, II, 418.[24]Diplomatic Correspondence, Vol. XI, p. 335.[25]Ford,Washington's Writings, X, 241-243.[26]American State Papers—Foreign Relations, I, p. 190.[27]Ibid., I, p. 191.[28]Ibid., I, pp. 188-192.[29]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 188-192.[30]Blank certificate—New York, April 23, 1783.This is to certify to whomsoever it may concern that the bearer hereof ........... a Negro restored to the British Lines in consequence of the proclamation of Sir William Howe and Sir Henry Clinton, late Commanders-in-chief in America; and that the said Negro has hereby his excellency's Sir Guy Carleton's permission to go to Nova Scotia or wherever else .......... may think proper.By order ofBrigadier Gen. Buck.E. Williams,Major of Brigade.[31]American State Papers, Vol. I, pp. 190-192.[32]McDonald'sSource Book of American History, p. 208.[33]American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, p. 276.[34]Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, p. 970.[35]Report of the American Historical Association, pp. 413-444;Diplomatic Correspondence 1783-1789(3 Vol. ed.), II, 340.[36]Morse,John Adams, p. 235.[37]Adams' Works, Vol. VIII, p. 303.[38]American Historical Association Report, 1894, p. 422. McLaughlin.American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, p. 122.[39]American Historical Association Report, 1894, p. 422.[40]American State Papers, Confidential Documents, Vol. X, p. 80.[41]American State Papers, Confidential Documents, Vol. X, p. 85.[42]McLaughlin,Western Posts and British Debts, p. 423 inAmerican Historical Association Report, 1894.[43]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 470-472.[44]Jay to Randolph,American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 485.[45]American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 485.[46]Ibid., p. 486.[47]American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, pp. 273-298.[48]American State Papers, Vol. I, p. 501.[49]Ibid., p. 509.[50]American Historical Association Report, Vol. I, pp. 273-298.[51]Annals of Congress—4th Session, 1795-96, p. 1006.[52]Halleck,Elements of Law, p. 358.[53]Ibid., p. 359.[54]Wheaton'sEdition by Dana, page 441.[55]American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. II, p. 46.[56]American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. II, p. 48.[57]Moore,Digest of International Law, Vol. V, page 372.[58]Ibid., page 375.[59]Ibid., pp. 375-376.[60]American State Papers—Foreign Relations, Vol. IV., p. 106.[61]This proclamation was:"Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view of entering his Majesty's service, or of being received as Free Settlers in some of his Majesty's colonies"This is therefore to give notice"That all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the United States will with their families be received on board his Majesty's ships or vessels of war or at the military ports that may be established upon or near the coast of the U.S. where they will have their choice of either entering his Majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as Free Settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies where they will meet all due encouragement."Given under my hand at Bermuda this 2nd day of April, 1814."By Command ofVice Admiral William Balhetchet"Alex. Cochrane."Niles Register, Vol. VI, p. 242.[62]Article I, Treaty of Ghent:"There shall be a firm and universal peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this treaty shall have been ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever taken by either party from the other during the war or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public nature, or belonging to private persons which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of the officers of either party, shall be as far as may be practicable forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands on the Bay of Passama-Quoddy as are claimed by both parties shall remain in the possession of the party in whose occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting the title to the said islands shall have been made in conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the islands and territories claimed by both parties, shall in any manner whatever be construed to effect the right of either...."[63]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. III, p. 750.[64]Ibid., Vol. III, page 751.[65]Moore'sInternational Arbitration, page 350.[66]Naval Chronicle, Vol. XXIV, page 213.[67]Moore'sInternational Arbitration, p. 352.[68]American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 105.[69]Ibid., p. 108.[70]American State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 126.[71]Moore'sInternational Arbitration, p. 363.[72]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. V, p. 214.[73]Maryland, 714; Va., 1721; S.C., 10; Ga., 833; La., 259; Miss., 22; Del., 2; Ala., 18; D. C., 3—page 801, Vol. V,American State Papers.[74]Moore,International Arbitration, p. 377.[75]Ibid., p. 377.[76]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume VI, page 344; 746.[77]Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 746.[78]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, p. 348.[79]Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 352.[80]Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 372.[81]Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 339[82]American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, page 855.[83]Four Statutes at Large, page 269.

[1]This dissertation is the result of the researches of Mr. A. G. Lindsay under Dr. C. G. Woodson at Howard University during the academic year 1919-1920 and was submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in candidacy for the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. C. G. Woodson was the chairman of this committee.The following sources were used in the preparation of this manuscript:American State Papers, Foreign Relations;American State Papers, Confidential Documents;American State Papers, Wait's Edition;Annals of Congress;Diary of John Quincy Adams, in hisMemoirs;Diplomatic Correspondence; Force,American Archives;Journals of Congress;Journals of Continental Congress; McDonald'sSource Book of American History;Niles Register;Treaties and Conventions, Edition 1889;United States Statutes at Large.The following works were also consulted: John Adams,Works; Van Tyne,The American Revolution;American Historical Association Reports; Babcock,Rise of American Nationality; Benton,Naval History of England; Channing,History of the United States; Ford,Washington's Writings; Ford,Jefferson's Writings; Fiske,Critical Period; Gibb,Administrations of Washington and Adams;The Journal of Negro History; Morse,John Adams;Naval Chronicle of England; Ramsay,History of South Carolina, Edition, 1809; Sparks,Washington; Moore,International Arbitration; Moore,Digest of International Law; Wharton,Digest of International Law, Edition, 1887; Halleck,Elements of Law; Wheaton,Elements of Law, Edition, by Dana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]Proclamation—"Whereas the enemy have adopted a practice of enrolling Negroes among their troops, I do hereby give Notice that all Negroes taken in Arms or upon any military Duty shall be purchased for the public service at a stated price; the money to be paid to the captors. But I do most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim right over any Negroes the property of a Rebel who may take refuge with any part of this Army. And I do promise to every Negro who shall desert the Rebel Standard full Security to follow within the Lines any occupation which he may think proper." Given under my Hand at Headquarters, Phillipsburg, the 30th day of June, 1799.H. Clinton.By his Excellency's CommanderJohn Smith, Sec.Journal of Continental Congress, II, 26; Van Tyne,American Revolution.

H. Clinton.

By his Excellency's CommanderJohn Smith, Sec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15]Article 7, Treaty of Paris.—"There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, and from every port, place and harbour within the same; leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds and papers belonging to any of the said states or their citizens which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong."McDonald,Documentary Source Book of American History, p. 208.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30]Blank certificate—New York, April 23, 1783.This is to certify to whomsoever it may concern that the bearer hereof ........... a Negro restored to the British Lines in consequence of the proclamation of Sir William Howe and Sir Henry Clinton, late Commanders-in-chief in America; and that the said Negro has hereby his excellency's Sir Guy Carleton's permission to go to Nova Scotia or wherever else .......... may think proper.By order ofBrigadier Gen. Buck.E. Williams,Major of Brigade.

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

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

By order of

Brigadier Gen. Buck.

E. Williams,Major of Brigade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[46]Ibid., p. 486.

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

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

[49]Ibid., p. 509.

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

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

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

[53]Ibid., p. 359.

[54]Wheaton'sEdition by Dana, page 441.

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

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

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

[58]Ibid., page 375.

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

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

[61]This proclamation was:"Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view of entering his Majesty's service, or of being received as Free Settlers in some of his Majesty's colonies"This is therefore to give notice"That all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the United States will with their families be received on board his Majesty's ships or vessels of war or at the military ports that may be established upon or near the coast of the U.S. where they will have their choice of either entering his Majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as Free Settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies where they will meet all due encouragement."Given under my hand at Bermuda this 2nd day of April, 1814."By Command ofVice Admiral William Balhetchet"Alex. Cochrane."Niles Register, Vol. VI, p. 242.

[61]This proclamation was:

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

"This is therefore to give notice

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

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

"By Command ofVice Admiral William Balhetchet

"Alex. Cochrane."

Niles Register, Vol. VI, p. 242.

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

[62]Article I, Treaty of Ghent:

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

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

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

[65]Moore'sInternational Arbitration, page 350.

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

[67]Moore'sInternational Arbitration, p. 352.

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

[69]Ibid., p. 108.

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

[71]Moore'sInternational Arbitration, p. 363.

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

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

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

[75]Ibid., p. 377.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83]Four Statutes at Large, page 269.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norman P. Andrews

Back to Index Next