FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]The Liberator, December, 10, 1836.

[1]The Liberator, December, 10, 1836.

The Republic of Liberia.By R. C. F.Maughan, F.R.G.S. and F.Z.S., etc., H. B. M., Consul-General at Monrovia. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1919. Pp. 299. Price $6.50.

This work is a general description of the Negro Republic, with its history, commerce, agriculture, flora, fauna, and present methods of administration. The book contains several maps and thirty-seven illustrations. The more interesting topics as to history and administration appear first and those of the statistically scientific and commercial order come nearer to the end.

The book was written in 1918 before the United States took sufficient interest in the republic to bring about certain epoch-making changes. The United States has since offered the country a loan of five million dollars and with the approval of Great Britain and France and with the request of the Liberian Government has consented to become the sole adviser in Liberian affairs. Since then Hon. C. D. B. King, who became President of Liberia in January 1920, has participated in the world's peace conference and visited Europe and America, where the heads of nations have assured him of deeper interest in Liberia than they have heretofore manifested.

This book was written from a point of view decidedly different from that of most writers on Liberia, whose tone is that of "gentle melancholy," descanting "upon the country and the people to whom it belongs as with a pen dipped in sighs." Instead of criticising he has in most cases merely described. Where criticisms have crept in they have been given in a spirit of sympathetic friendship. He finds in the country, therefore, much to admire and praise and an economic situation "which will assuredly bid fair, when normal conditions shall have returned to us once more, to attain to a measure of gratifying expansion and progress." He believes that Liberia will then be in a position "of having her feet placed firmly upon the ladder which should bring her in time to great heights. The author concedes that the rung which Liberia has already reached is not a high one perhaps, "but the way before her seems plain and unmistakable." He believes that the present guidance from the outside guarantees these most sanguine expectations in asmuch as the foreigners controlling the financial policy of the little republic are hard-working men who have already set the house somewhat in order. This, supplemented by a liberal policy of internal improvements, will result in the prosperity of the whole land.

In discussing this phase of the administration of Liberian affairs, the author does not bring out any particular resentment on the part of the natives as to foreign interference. The native officials welcome helpful advice and when not given they sometimes seek it. The author himself came into contact with a number of functionaries who frankly asked him to tell them what he thought of their methods. Except so far as such foreign guidance may bring financial relief, however, it is doubtful that these natives so easily yield to this sort of domination; for many Liberians are to-day endeavoring to get rid of the American loan which they fear may lead to conquest like that in Haiti. On the whole, however, this work comes nearer to the true portraiture of the Liberian situation than most volumes in this field.

The United States in Our Own Times, 1865-1920.ByPaul Haworth, Ph.D. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920. Pp. vii, 563.

The publication of this volume is justified by the author on the ground that in as much as an important object of history study is to enable one to understand the present, greater emphasis than hitherto must be laid on the period since the Civil War. Hoping then to supply the need of students who desire to know our own country in our own times the author has directed his attention to the problems of the new day, to social and industrial questions which have attained importance since the Civil War, and which, as the author views it, served as a break between these two distinct periods in our history.

Briefly stated, the author covers a little better than usually the field in which many others have recently written. There appears the aftermath of the Rebellion, then the drama of Reconstruction followed by national development making possible a new era, the changing order, the revival of the Democratic Party, hard times, free silver, troubles with Spain, imperialism, Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, the New West, Progressivism, the "New Freedom," "Watchful Waiting," the World War, and the Peace Conference. The book is well illustrated with useful maps showingthe West in 1876, the Cuba and Porto Rican campaigns, the Philippines, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America, the percentage of foreign-born whites in the total population in 1910, the percentage of Negroes in the total population in 1910, the Western Front in 1918, and the United States in 1920.

Discussing thus a period during which the most important problems before the American people has been how to segregate the Negroes within the law, the author touched here and there the so-called Negro question. While Dr. Haworth has not shown all of the breadth of mind expected in an historian he has been much more liberal than the pseudo-historians who endeavor merely to justify the proscription of the freedmen on the basis of so-called racial inferiority. Dr. Haworth does occasionally mention a Negro as having said or done something worthy of notice. In the average Reconstruction history there is no personal mention of the Negro except for the purpose to condemn him and to advise him how to make himself acceptable to his so-called superiors.

In his last chapter which he calls "A Golden Age in History" he says some things which we do not find in the works of the would-be historians of this period. On page 509 he writes: "A historian ought not to suppress uncomfortable facts, and it is undeniable that the treatment of the Negroes forms a blot on America's fair name. In parts of the South they are kept in a state of practical serfdom; in all cities they are herded into unsanitary districts; they are denied equal opportunities for advancement; and not infrequently they are maltreated and murdered by brutal mobs. It is true that individual Negroes, by fiendish assaults on white women, now and then rouse men to frenzy, but statistics show that only about a fifth of the lynchings of Negroes are because of the 'usual crime.' Burning at the stake is never justifiable under any circumstance, and it is undeniable that in race riots scenes of horror have been enacted that are a disgrace to American civilization. Such scenes are sadly out of place in a nation that proclaims itself the special champion of liberty and justice and which enlists in a crusade 'to make the world safe for democracy.'"

The American Colonization Society, 1817-1840.ByEarly Lee Fox, Ph.D., Professor of History in Randolph-Macon College. Baltimore. The John Hopkins Press, 1919. Pp. viii, 231.

This is another study made under the direction of the JohnsHopkins University faculty of Historical and Political Science and like many others of this order lies in the field of southern history and is written from the ex parte point of view. It does not cover the whole history of the American Colonization Society but restricts itself to that period when it was largely a southern enterprise primarily interested in getting rid of the Negro. Throughout the story there is too much effort to evade eloquent facts, too much effort to excuse the sins of the South by showing that the North itself was once slaveholding and slavetrading. On the whole, however, the author has in the use of such valuable material as the manuscripts and especially the letters of the American Colonization Society brought to light significant facts which the historian will be glad to use more advantageously.

After a brief introduction the book treats of the free Negro and the slave. Then comes the chapter on the organization, purpose, and early record of the Society. Attention is next directed to the conflict between the colonizationists and the abolitionists. Colonization is afterward discussed in connection with emancipation and finally with the African slave trade. Throughout the whole treatise there is a defense of the "lofty" motives of the men who labored so hard for the expatriation of the Negroes. As the author sees it, although the Society did not send many Negroes to Africa, it was after all a success; for it had a bearing on the emancipation of slaves, and on the suppression of the African slave trade. Abolitionists, attacking this undertaking based upon national sentiment, were endangering the union by their propaganda founded upon sectional sentiment. Colonization, therefore, was just because it was "born out of a desire to unite the North and the South in the settlement of the Negro problem." The purpose of the treatise then is to (page 127) "set forth the true aims of orthodox Colonizationists, or from another point to demonstrate that their aims were as sincerely expressed as sound policy would admit, and that, where motives were concealed, they were concealed in order to secure the freedom of the slaves."

Written from this point of view the dissertation becomes too much of a polemic to be accepted as a scientific treatise. Too much space is devoted to the task of unifying the widely different views of the colonizationists, too much effort is made to contrast the methods of the colonizationists with those of the abolitionists. The author does not seem to realize or at least fails to admit that the abolitionists were radical reformers seeking to eradicate the causeof social disease whereas the colonizationists were merely treating the symptoms of the malady in undertaking the impossible task of transplanting a whole race.

The general argument of the author in favor of the beneficence of colonization is not convincing. There is no authority for the contention that colonization promoted emancipation when the records show that the majority of slaveholders who supported it had in mind the expatriation of the free Negroes who among the bondmen were a living testimony against slavery. To say that colonization might check the slave trade by establishing one small colony in Africa is about as unsound, contended some free Negroes in 1831, as to argue that "a watchman in the city of Boston would prevent thievery in New York; or that the custom house officers there would prevent goods being smuggled into any other part of the United States." It is an insult to the intelligence of men who have seriously considered history to say that colonization was so built upon national sentiment as to have a direct bearing on the preservation of the Union when the colonizationists differed widely among themselves in the very beginning and finally divided just as the abolitionists, who at one time had also a national standing, in that most anti-slavery societies were once found in the South. Until Negro history, therefore, has been removed from the hands of those using it to whitewash their ancestors the world must still lack knowledge as to how the progress of mankind has been influenced by the Negro.

The Voice of the Negro.ByRobert T. Kerlin, Professor of English at the Virginia Military Institute. New York, E. P. Dutton and Company, 1920. Pp. xii, 188.

The purpose of this book may best be expressed in the words of the author himself, when he says, in the preface: "The following work is a compilation from the colored press of America for the four months [July 1st to November 1st, 1919] immediately succeeding the Washington riot. It is designed to show the Negro's reaction to that and like events following, and to the World War and the discussion of the Treaty. It may, in the Editor's estimation, be regarded as a primary document in promoting a knowledge of the Negro, his point of view, his way of thinking upon race relations, his grievances, his aspirations, his demands." A book of such purport, especially when coming from the pen of awhite man, must attract attention, and if the newspapers and periodicals from which the various extracts are chosen may be called truly representative, as in this case they are, the compiler has performed a distinct service in the field of American History.

Professor Kerlin has culled his clippings from eighty current Negro periodicals, published from Massachusetts to Georgia, and ranging from the startlingly radical to the most hide-bound conservative type. He has used only articles written by Negroes in Negro publications, has sorted them and grouped them under ten heads, entitled respectively: The Colored Press, The New Era, The Negro's Reaction to the World War, The Negro's Grievances and Demands, Riots, Lynchings, The South and the Negro, The Negro and Labor Unionism and Bolshevism, Negro Progress, and The Lyric Cry,—a remarkable assortment of first-hand information concerning Negro thought with regard to each topic.

Professor Kerlin makes no attempt to interpret the material of his book; he merely presents it. It is for him who reads also to read between the lines. It is doubtless impossible to choose any one expression that will accurately represent Negro thought as caught in these pages, yet four lines of poetry included in the book will serve as well as any:

"We would be manly—proving well our worth,Then would not cringe to anygodon earth..........."We would be peaceful, Father,—but when we must,Help us to thunder hard the blow that's just!"

"We would be manly—proving well our worth,Then would not cringe to anygodon earth.

..........

"We would be peaceful, Father,—but when we must,Help us to thunder hard the blow that's just!"

This is the Voice of the Negro which Professor Kerlin intimates cannot go unheeded.

The book might have been made more useful by the addition of an alphabetical and topical index of the periodicals used.

D. A. Lane.

The following account of the centenary celebration of St. Philip's Episcopal Church from theNew York Worldof November 14, 1920, will be interesting to all persons interested in Negro history:

"The Right Rev. Charles Sumner Burch, D.D., Bishop of New York, and the Right Rev. Henry Beard Delany, D.D., Suffragan Bishop of North Carolina, will participate in the centennial celebration at St. Philip's Church, No. 212 West 134th Street, the Rev. H. C. Bishop, rector, which will begin to-day.

"One hundred years ago Nov. 14 St. Philip's Church was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. The event is significant, for it antedated the Civil War by forty-one years and the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln by forty-five years. It is not only, nor primarily, an ecclesiastical event, but a political and social one as well, inasmuch as this act of Legislature recognized and confirmed the citizenship of the petitioners, showing that these colored Episcopalians were an integral part of the body politic.

"It was in 1809, under the leadership of Mr. McCoombs, a lay reader, that a mission for colored people was opened in a school room on the corner of Frankfort and William Streets, where they remained until 1812, and after the death of Mr. McCoombs removed to a room in Cliff Street with Peter Williams, Jr., a colored man, as lay reader, where they remained five years, moving from there to a school room on Rose Street.

"In 1819 three lots were obtained on the west side of Collect, now Centre Street, and upon this site a wooden building was erected at a cost of $5,000. It was consecrated by Bishop John Henry Hobart, July 19, 1819, and was named St. Philip's Church. After its incorporation in 1820 Mr. Williams, who had been ordained to the Deaconate in October, was appointed minister in charge, Dec. 24, 1821, the building was destroyed by fire, but was rebuilt the following year of brick at a cost of $8,000.

"Mr. Williams was advanced to the priesthood in 1827, and became the first rector of the church. He died in 1840. In 1853the parish was received into union with the Convention of the Diocese of New York. At that time the church was at No. 305 Mulberry Street, and the Rev. William Morris LL.D., rector of Trinity School, was the officiating minister.

"The parish was without a rector from 1840 to 1872, when the Rev. William J. Alston, trained at Kenyon College, Gambier, O., was called to the rectorship. He continued in office until 1874, and there was a vacancy until 1875, when the Rev. Joseph J. Atwell, a native of Barbados, British West Indies, was elected rector. His death in 1882 again left the office vacant until 1886, when the present incumbent, the Rev. Hutchens C. Bishop, was elected.

"During Mr. Atwell's incumbency the Parish House for Aged Women was founded. The long years of vacancy retarded the growth of the parish so that in 1885 there were but 284 communicants after a group existence of seventy-six years.

"In 1886 the congregation made another journey, locating at No. 161 West 125th Street, where it remained until 1910, when, following the migration northward, lots running from 133d to 134th Street were obtained and a commodious church and parish house were erected. The growth of the parish since that time has been phenomenal. There are now over 2,500 communicants and not room enough in the parish house to accommodate the various activities.

"At the present time St. Philip's may be said to be the only church in the neighborhood in any way equipped to serve the colored people of the community. Churchmen point out that if there is one place in Manhattan where there should be buildings adapted for indoor recreation and entertainment for the young colored people, it is that particular part of the city. They claim there should be day nurseries, gymnasiums, beneficial societies and forums for the discussion of industrial problems, where employer and employee might meet and each present his side.

"The centennial celebration will extend over a week. Bishop Burch will preach at the special thanksgiving service to-day at 11 o'clock, while Bishop Delany and one of the two negro Bishops in the Episcopal Church will make an address at the evening service.

"There will be an historical pageant to-morrow night. A public meeting with the pastors of St. Mark's, Olivet, Mother, A. M. E. Zion, St. Cyprian, George Foster Peabody and James Weldon Johnson as the speakers will take place Tuesday night. Followingthis meeting there will be a reception and parish supper in the basement of the church. Wednesday night is set apart for a praise service, when the Rev. Dr. Manning, Dr. Stires, Dr. Grant and Dr. Bragg will deliver addresses.

"The newly organized Provincial Conference of Church Workers Among Colored People will hold its sessions Thursday and Friday, when representative ministers and lay workers will participate. The conference will be addressed Friday night by Dr. Harry T. Ward of Union Theological Seminary and Dr. Robert Russa Moton, Principal of Tuskegee Institute."

The annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History was called to order by Dr. C. G. Woodson, the Director of Research and Editor of theJournal of Negro History. After a few preliminary remarks, President John W. Davis of the West Virginia Collegiate Institute was asked to open the meeting by the invocation of divine blessing. Professor William Hansberry of Straight College was introduced to deliver a lecture on the Ancient and Mediaeval Culture of the People of Yorubuland. This was a most informing disquisition on the achievements of these people prior to the time when they came into contact with the so-called more advanced Asiatic and European races. On the whole, Professor Hansberry made a strong argument in behalf of the contention that the culture of these people was indigenous and that brought into comparison with that of the ancient Greek and Roman it does not materially suffer.

Mr. A. O. Stafford, the principal of the Lincoln School of Washington, D. C., then read a very illuminating and informing paper on African folk lore. He discussed briefly the various authorities producing works in this field and indicated sources of information which have not yet been explored. He then made a general survey of African folk lore, showing how the Negro mind from the very earliest periods of African history exhibited independent thought and philosophical tendency.

At the conclusion of these addresses there followed a general discussion in which participated Principal D. S. S. Goodloe of the Maryland State Normal and Industrial School, Mr. John W. Cromwell, President of the American Negro Academy, Mr. Monroe N. Work, Director of Research and Records, Tuskegee Institute, and President John W. Davis of the West Virginia Collegiate Institute.

At two o'clock the Association held a business session. The general routine of business was followed. There being no unfinished business or reports of special committees, the Association heardthe reports of the officers of last year. The Director read his report and the report of the Secretary-Treasurer was presented by his assistant, Miss A. H. Smith. They follow:

The Report of the Director

During the year 1919-1920 the Association has made steady progress in spite of the difficulties resulting from the increasing cost of labor and supplies. There has been some difficulty in raising additional funds adequate to the needs of the Association and for this reason the organization is now suffering from a deficit of about $2500. Persons of means, however, have from time to time volunteered so as to give sufficient relief to keep the work going. Efforts are now being made to remove this deficit in the near future through the increase in the contributions annually received and gifts from other friends who will be asked to make sacrifices for the cause.The study of Negro history has not extended by leaps and bounds but the progress of the work is in every way encouraging. The number of subscribers to theJournal of Negro Historyhas not increased because of the necessity to double the subscription price in keeping with the demands of high prices, but the influence of the work has considerably expanded. This magazine is now being used as collateral reading in most of the leading white and Negro institutions of the country and the number of classes thus engaged are increasing every year. There is also a healthy public opinion in favor of prosecuting the study of Negro history more vigorously. Almost any book setting forth facts as to what the Negro has thought and felt and done now has considerable demand among persons in this country and abroad. While this Association does not claim credit for all which has been accomplished in this field, it has certainly given a decided stimulus to the work.It will be interesting to report, moreover, the number of institutions closely cooperating with the Association in prosecuting the study of the Negro. Among these may be mentioned special classes in this work at Howard University, conducted by the Director himself last year, and at the West Virginia Collegiate Institute, where he is now engaged. In Lincoln Institute, Missouri, considerable good has been accomplished among students even of a high school grade, whereas at the State Normal and Industrial Institute at Frankfort, Kentucky, the work has interested a larger number of more advanced students. Institutions like Straight College, Fisk, Atlanta, Morehouse, Wilberforce, and Lincoln are laying a good foundation in this field.

The study of Negro history has not extended by leaps and bounds but the progress of the work is in every way encouraging. The number of subscribers to theJournal of Negro Historyhas not increased because of the necessity to double the subscription price in keeping with the demands of high prices, but the influence of the work has considerably expanded. This magazine is now being used as collateral reading in most of the leading white and Negro institutions of the country and the number of classes thus engaged are increasing every year. There is also a healthy public opinion in favor of prosecuting the study of Negro history more vigorously. Almost any book setting forth facts as to what the Negro has thought and felt and done now has considerable demand among persons in this country and abroad. While this Association does not claim credit for all which has been accomplished in this field, it has certainly given a decided stimulus to the work.

It will be interesting to report, moreover, the number of institutions closely cooperating with the Association in prosecuting the study of the Negro. Among these may be mentioned special classes in this work at Howard University, conducted by the Director himself last year, and at the West Virginia Collegiate Institute, where he is now engaged. In Lincoln Institute, Missouri, considerable good has been accomplished among students even of a high school grade, whereas at the State Normal and Industrial Institute at Frankfort, Kentucky, the work has interested a larger number of more advanced students. Institutions like Straight College, Fisk, Atlanta, Morehouse, Wilberforce, and Lincoln are laying a good foundation in this field.

Report of the Secretary-Treasurer.

The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Incorporated, Washington, D. C.Gentlemen: I hereby submit to you a report of the amount of money received and expended by the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Incorporated, from September 30, 1919 to September 30, 1920, inclusive:Receipts ExpendituresSubscriptions $ 778.32 Printing and Stationery $2,733.54Memberships 160.00 Petty Cash Expenses 551.26Contributions 3,331.00 Rent and Light 250.30News Agents 69.47 Stenographic Service 901.80Advertisements 264.05 Miscellaneous Expenses 269.98Books 19.63 Total Expenditures $4,706.88Rent 15.00 Balance September 30, 1920. 48.86———————— ————————Total Receipts, Sept. 30, $4,755.741919, to Sept. 30,1920 $4,637.47Balance Sept. 30, 1919 118.27————————$4,755.74Respectfully submitted,Alethe H. SmithAssist. to the Secretary-Treasurer.

The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Incorporated, Washington, D. C.

Gentlemen: I hereby submit to you a report of the amount of money received and expended by the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Incorporated, from September 30, 1919 to September 30, 1920, inclusive:

Receipts ExpendituresSubscriptions $ 778.32 Printing and Stationery $2,733.54Memberships 160.00 Petty Cash Expenses 551.26Contributions 3,331.00 Rent and Light 250.30News Agents 69.47 Stenographic Service 901.80Advertisements 264.05 Miscellaneous Expenses 269.98Books 19.63 Total Expenditures $4,706.88Rent 15.00 Balance September 30, 1920. 48.86———————— ————————Total Receipts, Sept. 30, $4,755.741919, to Sept. 30,1920 $4,637.47Balance Sept. 30, 1919 118.27————————$4,755.74

Respectfully submitted,

Alethe H. SmithAssist. to the Secretary-Treasurer.

After a brief discussion these reports were accepted and approved. The Association then spent some time in discussing the advisability of holding annual meetings at strategic points and there prevailed a motion to the effect that the Executive Council be requested to hold the next annual meeting of the Association in Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting adjourned after electing the following as officers: Robert E. Park, President, Jesse E. Moorland, Secretary-Treasurer, Carter G. Woodson, Director of Research and Editor; who with Julius Rosenwald, George Foster Peabody, James H. Dillard, John R. Hawkins, Emmett J. Scott, William G. Willcox, Bishop John Hurst, Albert Bushnell Hart, Thomas Jesse Jones, A. L. Jackson, Moorfield Storey, and Bishop R. E. Jones, were made members of the Executive Council.

At the evening session at the John Wesley A. M. E. Z. Church, the Association was addressed by three men of distinction. The first speaker was Professor Kelly Miller of Howard University who briefly discussed the Limits of Philanthropy in Negro Education, endeavoring to show that helpful as has been the program of the whites to educate the Negroes, their work must be a failure, if it does not ultimately result in equipping the Negro to take over his own school systems that the direction, hitherto in the hands of whites, may be dispensed with.

Professor Robert T. Kerlin of the Virginia Military Institute, having misunderstood his place on the program appeared at this meeting and, as one of the persons scheduled to address the sessiondid not present himself, he was permitted to speak. His discourse was an extensive discussion of the role played by poetry in the civilization of a people and how the Negro poet is rendering his race and the country service in singing of his woes and clamoring for a new opportunity.

The meeting was closed with an address by Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard, the Editor of theNation, discussing the subject, The Economic Bases of the Race Question. His discourse was a political and sociological treatise based upon facts of history and economics to show the hopelessness of a program to right the wrongs of the Negroes unless that program has its foundation in things economic, in as much as the present day situation offers no hope that politics will play any particular part in the solution. All three speakers made a very favorable impression upon the audience and so enlightened it by the masterful array of facts presenting their point of view as to make this one of the most interesting sessions ever held by the Association.

The first session of the second day consisted of a conference on the Negro in America. In the absence of Dr. R. E. Park, Dr. C. G. Woodson spent most of the time discussing the achievements in the writing of history of the Negro in America, especially in the United States. He discussed the various motives actuating persons to enter this field, showing that in most cases these were propagandists and for that reason a non-partisan and unbiased history of the Negro has not yet been written. He then discussed the possibility of producing interesting, comprehensive and valuable works by the proper use of the various materials. These materials, however, contended he, would have to be given scientific treatment that the whole truth might be extracted therefrom. He then showed the possibility of error in accepting as evidence the opinions of the proslavery element about the antislavery element, the opinions of the abolitionists about the colonizationists and vice versa. These will have to be scientifically examined and after all the actual facts of Negro history must be determined from such sources as letters, diaries, books of travel, and unconscious evidence in the current publications of the times.

At the conclusion of the address remarks were made by Mr. A. H. Grimke, Mr. T. C. Williams, Mr. G. C. Wilkinson, Mr. A. C. Newman, Professor A. H. Locke, Professor Walter Dyson, and Professor William L. Hansberry. Professor Hansberry discussedfor a few minutes the value of the sources in African history making his talk very illuminating and instructive.

The afternoon was devoted to a meeting of the Executive Council to which the public was not invited but in the evening a large number of members and friends of the cause attended the session, at the John Wesley A. M. E. Z. Church. The speakers of the occasion were Mr. Charles E. Russell of Washington, D. C., and Professor Albert Bushnell Hart of Harvard University. Mr. Russell discussed theNegro's Right to Justicetaking the record of the Negro as a worthy one and the fallacy of discrimination against him in the midst of the struggle for democracy. The address was both illuminating and convincing. Then followed the address of Professor Hart onFree Men by Choice. He endeavored to show that no person is actually free. That all elements of the population and all classes are more or less restricted. This discussion was both legal and historical, presenting in its various ramifications the social order in the country and the legislation underlying the same. He finally brought out the important fact that although the institution of slavery imprisoned the body of the Negroes, it could not control their minds.

In 1763 the Peace of Paris definitely fixed the boundaries of Virginia, giving as its western line, the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Lake of Woods.[1]As time and settlement progressed, the other colonies, growing fearful of Virginia's commanding position, protested against her retention of this vast territory. Finally, in 1784, Virginia ceded to the Congress of the Confederation all lands lying north and west of the Ohio River. She wanted it stipulated, however, that the territory between the Ohio River and the Allegheny Mountains comprising what is now West Virginia should remain forever hers. Although the Congress did not make this stipulation, for the reason that Virginia was unable to show title; Virginia was, nevertheless, permitted to retain possession of the said territory.[2]

"The surface of Virginia of that day is divided into two unequally inclined planes and a centrally located valley. The eastern plane is subdivided into the Piedmont and the Tidewater; the western into the Allegheny Highlands, the Cumberland Plateau, and the Ohio Valley section; the area between was designated the Valley." The easternpart of the State abounds in rich fertile soil, well adapted to agriculture, while the western portion, especially the trans-Allegheny region possesses in large quantities such natural resources as bituminous coal, building stone, natural gas and petroleum.[3]The "Valley," a part of the great Appalachian range of valleys, is a depressed surface, several hundred feet below the top of the Blue Ridge Mountains on the one side, and the Alleghenies on the other. It is the dividing line of the two sections of the State then known as eastern and western Virginia.

The earlier settlements west of the mountains were made by the more adventurous persons of the east, who had no property or other ties to attach them to the soil whence they came. At a later date, a more substantial class, Germans and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, made settlements in this western country. They brought few slaves with them but engaged in agriculture. A new type of people from the free States to the north and west, next, came to Western Virginia.[4]

Slavery did not become a flourishing institution there, and in the decades between the years of 1840 and 1860, the demand for slave labor in the Gulf States caused the bulk of the slave population to go to that market. The commercial and industrial interests developed there found their outlets west and north. There was little intercourse of any kind and practically no commerce with Eastern Virginia. No railroad connected the west with the east. Burning political differences manifested themselves, and these, with the lack of commercial and social intercourse already noted, accentuated strife between the two sections,[5]as was manifested in every State constitutional convention held prior to the Civil War.

The Constitutional Convention of 1829 at Richmond was one of the most important conventions in the history of the Virginia dissension. The transmontane people, the peopleof the Valley and some of those of the Piedmont were arrayed against the aristocratic land owners of the Tidewater, demanding a greater share in the government of the Commonwealth. The leading issues before the convention were: (1) the question of extension of suffrage, (2) a more equitable basis of representation in the legislature, and (3) the question of taxation as a minor problem.

The right of suffrage was then conditioned upon the ownership of land. The law regulating this matter had remained the same since 1776, except that the number of acres of improved land, the possession of which entitled one to vote, had been reduced from 50 to 25.[6]Thus all those persons who were not attached to land or who did not possess land in sufficient quantities were denied the ballot. The west, whose white population, in 1829, was 319,516, argued and fought for citizen-suffrage, while the east, whose white population was 362,745 at this time, representing a fifteen per cent increase since 1790, as compared with one of 150 per cent for the west, opposed this measure.[7]

The question of the reapportionment of representation was one of the greatest importance. Here again, just as suffrage was based upon the ownership of land, representation was based upon interests. In 1828 the House of Delegates consisted of two hundred and fourteen members; the Senate of twenty-four." Of these numbers the transmontane country had but eighty delegates and nine senators.[8]This section, then proposed that the basis of apportionment should be the white population. The cismontane people opposed this, since any change in this direction would tend to place too much political power in the hands of the westerners.

After a discussion on the white and mixed bases proposals, which lasted three weeks, the convention finally turned to a consideration of the various plans of compromise. Mr. Gordon, of Albemarle County, presented a planwhich was finally accepted with slight modifications. He ignored completely the basis question and attempted an equitable distribution of representation. "It provided for a Senate of twenty-four, of which ten would come from the West; and a House of one hundred and twenty; of which twenty-six would come from the trans-Allegheny, twenty-four from the Valley, thirty-seven from the Piedmont and thirty-three from the Tidewater."[9]Incidentally this plan was quite acceptable to the populous counties of the Piedmont foothills and the Valley, for it tended to increase their representation.

As a constitutional basis for future reapportionments of representation, the following provision was made a part of the constitution:

"That the General Assembly, after the year of 1841 and at intervals of not less than ten years, shall have authority, two-thirds of each House concurring, to make re-apportionments of Delegates and Senators throughout the Commonwealth, so that the number of Delegates shall not at any time exceed one hundred and fifty, nor of Senators thirty-six."[10]

The question of taxation was one of some importance. Prior to 1829, the west had drawn annually for administrative purposes more than it had contributed to the treasury. Real estate values in the west were low because of the lack of speculative spirit there, and, consequently, taxes were not collected in great amounts. The west now desired (1) greater revenues to construct roads and canals and to maintain free schools and (2) the power to tax the slave property of the east. There were at this time east of the Blue Ridge Mountains 397,000 Negro slaves subject to taxation and nearly 50,000 in the west. The slave property contributed one-third of the revenue of the State. The east, therefore, determined not to give to the west the desired power to tax her property.[11]

Although the question of reapportionment of representation, the question of taxation and the suffrage question were among the foremost considerations of the Convention, the underlying and basic cause of all this strife was the slavery issue.[12]Those who advocated and supported the institution of slavery were loath to surrender to the people of the west any of the power and privileges that they possessed. Some of Eastern Virginia and a great majority of the people in Western Virginia were opposed to slavery. They believed still in the principles advocated by the fathers of the country as set by George Mason, who, while deploring the institution, had formerly said: "Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."[13]

A memorial presented to the convention in October in 1829, said that Virginia was in a state of "moral and political retrogression" and proceeded to specify:

"That the causes heretofore frequently assigned are the true ones we do not believe.... We humbly suggest our belief that the slavery that exists and which with gigantic strides is gaining ground among us, is, in truth, the great efficient cause of the multiplied evils we deplore. We cannot conceive that there is any other cause sufficiently operative to paralyze the energies of a people so magnanimous, to neutralize the blessings of Providence included in the gift of a land so happy in its soil, its climate, its minerals and its waters; and to annul the manifold advantages of our republican system and geographical position. If Virginia has already fallen from her high estate, and if we have assigned a true cause for her fall, it is with the utmost anxiety that we look to the future to the fatal termination of the scene. As we valueour domestic happiness, as our hearts yearn for the prosperity of our offspring, as we pray for the guardian care of the Almighty over our Country—we earnestly inquire what shall be done to avert the impending ruin. The efficient cause of our calamities is vigorously increasing in magnitude and potency, while we wake and while we sleep."[14]

The able men in the convention saw that no permanent agreement could be reached between the two sections until the basic cause of the whole conflict had been settled. The power of the big planters, however, was too great and there was made no constitutional provision having the purpose to abolish slavery. The Convention of 1829-30, therefore, settled nothing. A compromise was effected on the question of re-apportionment of representation; a constitutional provision set forth a program of future apportionments; but the permanent settlement of this and other important questions was left for the Convention of 1850.

The Assembly of 1831-32 was the scene of an intense debate on the issue of slavery. Because of a turn of events, a more definite cleavage had come between the east and the west. The domestic slave trade, improved methods of agriculture, internal improvements, better means of communication, the consequent increase of capital which helped to restore the impoverished lands and to bring into use the uncultivated areas of the east, brought about in that section a marked revival of interest in the economic possibilities of slavery.[15]The west took a step in the opposite direction.

It must be remembered, however, that there were but few abolitionists of the extreme type in the western sections of Virginia. The responsible leaders in this movement against slavery were not concerned with any moral or religious theories on the subject, but rather, were acting because of their conviction that slavery was an economic evil. These men saw that the States to the north and west of them had outstripped them in the race for material prosperity.They saw, too, the gradual but unrelenting impoverishment of the east. They concluded, therefore, that their lack of prosperity was due to their proximity to the slave-holding section of the State. The belief became current that the natural resources of the west would attract capital and population, if the objectional slaves were removed. In consequence, therefore, they favored a gradual emancipation and deportation of the slaves.[16]

Numerous petitions, memorials and resolutions found their way to the Assembly. These may be divided into three classes: (1) those asking for the removal of free Negroes from the State; (2) those seeking to amend the Federal Constitution with a view to giving Congress power to appropriate money with which to purchase slaves and transport them and the free Negroes from the United States; and (3) those urging the State to devise some scheme for gradual emancipation.[17]The first class of petitions came principally from the large slave-holding sections of the State; the second and third classes came from those sections of the State in which slaves were not numerous.

It was evident that this Assembly must take a definite position with reference to the question of the abolishment of slavery. Accordingly, therefore, a number of these resolutions concerning slavery were referred to a select committee composed of twenty-one members, sixteen of whom were from counties east of the Blue Ridge. After three days of conference, during which fiery discussions and motions were rampant in the legislature, the committee reported to the effect that "it is inexpedient for the present to make any legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."[18]Mr. Preston, of Montgomery, moved immediately to amend the report by substituting therefor: "It is expedient at this time to adopt some legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."[19]The amendment was defeatedby a vote of seventy-three to fifty-eight. Mr. Bryce, of Goochland County, thereupon, proposed to amend the report of the select committee, already herein noted, by prefixing the following preamble: "Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the condition of the Colored population of the Commonwealth; induced by humanity as well as policy to an immediate effort for the removal, in the first place as well as those who are now free as of such as may hereafter become free, believing that this effort, while it is in just accordance with the sentiment of the community on the subject, will absorb all our present means; and that a further action for the removal of the slaves, should await a more definite development of public opinion."[20]This preamble was adopted, despite tremendous opposition of the pro-slavery men.

The discussion of 1832 was followed by a decided reaction against the proposal for the abolition of slavery. Professor Thomas R. Dew, of William and Mary College, crystallized the pro-slavery sentiment in a masterful essay entitled:A Review of the Debates in the Virginia Legislature of 1831-32. This essay dealt with the theoretical and practical aspects of slavery in all countries and especially with the rise and development of Negro slavery in America. It pointed out the difficulties attendant upon the deportation of the free black and slave populations, and the danger to society of their emancipation without deportation. It ridiculed the idea of a successful slave uprising under the conditions then obtaining, and held that the whole discussion of so momentous a question by young and inexperienced legislators was entirely out of order.[21]The forceful argument of Professor Dew was met by one from Jesse Burton Harrison, whose essay was entitled: "A Review of the Speech of Thomas Marshall in the Virginia Assembly of 1831-32." Mr. Harrison's arguments to prove that Negro slavery in Virginia was an economic evil appeared to be merely a reiterationof the arguments of Marshall.[22]Former President Madison also replied briefly to Dew. His essay set forth that Dew had held too cheaply the presence of Negro slavery and emigration and ascribed too much importance to the influence of the tariff laws.[23]

By far the most important sectional issue in Virginia during the period 1834 to 1850 was that arising out of a movement for a united slave-holding South. The Virginia Congressmen had voted as a body against the "Wilmot Proviso," the abolition of the domestic slave trade and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In spite of these facts, leading citizens of Western Virginia were trying to devise ways and means whereby to rid that portion of the State of Negro slavery. Dr. Henry Ruffner, Henry McDowell Moore and John Letcher were prominent among those who proposed a plan whereby the gradual emancipation of all slaves in the State west of the Blue Ridge Mountains would be effected. The plan was first debated in the Franklin Society at Lexington in 1847. Later it appeared as a pamphlet entitledAn Address to the People of West Virginia by a Slaveholder of West Virginia. This pamphlet proposed to show that slavery was opposed to the public welfare and that it might be gradually abolished without results detrimental to the rights and interests of the slave holders. It contained elaborate comparisons between the slave-holding States and those not holding slaves, to the disadvantage of the former, in tending to prove that slavery was an economic evil.[24]

Dr. Ruffner, later speaking of the movement, said: "No one so far as I can remember took the abolitionist ground that slave holding was a sin and ought to be abolished. With us, it was merely a question of expediency and was argued with special reference to the interests of West Virginia." Speaking of the reception of the pamphlet in Western Virginia, he said that the editors in the Valley, doubtingthe success of the scheme, hesitated to endorse his efforts; but that west of the Alleghenies it met with a most encouraging reception.[25]

There began during the two decades from 1830 to 1850 a period of internal improvements because of a rapid increase in the population and wealth of Western Virginia. The construction of turnpikes and local railroads in the trans-Allegheny country and the projection of other improvements attracted there immigrants, and served also to interest speculation in its cheap lands and natural resources. English and eastern capitalists purchased large tracts of land and sold them in small parcels to settlers who occupied them.[26]Capitalists from the Middle West and New England States established small manufactories there, and immigrants coming thither chose between working therein and becoming farmers or teachers. A considerable German population was numbered among these immigrants. The census of 1850 showed an excess of 90,372 white population in the West over that in the East. The lands in the transmontane country had risen to a value of only fifteen million dollars less than the cash value of the lands east of the Blue Ridge.[27]

It is significant that the improvements during this period had tended, altogether, to connect the commercial interests of Western Virginia more definitely with those of the Free States to the north and west. Not a single railroad connected the western part of the State with the Tidewater. The proceeds of bond issues floated to promote internal improvements in the State had not been used to effect commercial ties between the two sections of the State, nor had any considerable portion thereof been used to improve the western districts. On the other hand, the interest of the people at the foot hills of the Piedmont had become more definitely aligned with those of the other eastern sections of the State. The chief grievance of the former had beenremedied by the compromise convention of 1829-30, which gave them a larger representation in the House of Delegates. Likewise, the pursuit of intensive agriculture in the Valley had led to the introduction of many slaves there, thus tending to create a bond of interest between this region and the slave-holding east. In the Constitutional Convention of 1850, therefore, the people of the transmontane country found themselves arrayed against the three other sections of the State.[28]

It has been herein noted that the Convention of 1829-30 settled nothing. A compromise had been effected which relieved somewhat the tension that existed over the matter of representation. The constitutional provision that gave to the Assembly the power, after 1841 and thereafter at intervals of not less than ten years, and under prescribed conditions, to make re-apportionments of representation had never been availed of. In view of its phenomenal growth in wealth and population, the west keenly resented this failure to act on the part of the Assembly of 1841-42.[29]The questions, therefore, that confronted the Convention of 1829-30 were again brought forward in 1850.

The Convention of 1850 met at Richmond in October, but shortly adjourned until January 6, 1851. In February the question of the basis of representation was taken up. The Committee appointed to determine the proper basis could reach no agreement; thereupon, many plans were submitted by delegates from each section of the State. The western delegates proposed that the House of Delegates should consist of one hundred and fifty-six members, should be elected biennially, and that the Senate should consist of fifty members chosen for four years; both Houses should be elected upon the suffrage basis; and in 1862 and every ten years thereafter, a re-apportionment should be made on that basis. The eastern delegates proposed a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty-six members and a Senate of thirty-six; both Houses should be electedon the mixed basis and re-apportionments should be made on that basis in 1855 and every ten years thereafter.[30]

Neither of these plans was adopted. Consequently various plans of compromise were brought forward. Botts, of Richmond, and George W. Summers, of Kanawha, were among those who suggested propositions. On the motion of Mr. Martin, of Henry County, it was decided that a committee of eight, four from each section, be elected by the convention to provide a compromise. On the fifteenth day of May, this committee reported in favor of a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty members; eighty-two from the west and sixty-eight from the east; and a Senate of fifty; thirty from the east and twenty from the west. It provided further for a re-apportionment in 1865 and for submitting both the mixed and suffrage bases to the people should the Assembly, at that time, fail to agree.[31]The plan was rejected. Following the failure of several other compromise plans, Chilton presented with modifications the report of the committee of eight.[32]This report provided that the numbers therein indicated for each house remain unchanged; but should the legislature of 1865 fail to re-apportion representation, the governor would be "required to submit to the vote of the people four propositions, namely; (1) the suffrage basis, (2) the mixed basis, (3) the white population basis, and (4) the taxation basis." This plan was carried in committee of the whole and later, with slight modifications, was adopted by the Convention.

The question of suffrage was settled amicably since the delegates from neither section opposed an extension thereof. The privilege of the ballot, therefore, was extended to "Every white male citizen of the commonwealth of the age of twenty-one years";[33]paupers and others usually excepted, not to be included.

The question of taxation was one of the important issuesto be settled. The eastern delegates opposed the white basis of representation, chiefly through the fear that westerners would use their newly gained political power to tax slave property to secure funds for internal improvements.[34]The eastern members insisted, therefore, that all property taxes should be ad valorem and that no one species should be taxed higher than another. They were unwilling, too, that Negro slaves under twelve years of age should be taxed at all. It was finally provided that an ad valorem tax be placed on all property according to its value, but that Negro slaves under twelve years of age be exempt and slaves twelve years and over be taxed per capita at not more than the tax on land worth three hundred dollars.[35]The inhabitants of the west never became reconciled to this discriminating arrangement and it was especially irritating during the years immediately preceding the war,[36]when the price of slaves often ranged from sixteen hundred to eighteen hundred dollars.[37]

In this Convention the men of the west were less bent upon obtaining a constitutional provision declaring for the gradual emancipation of slaves than they were in 1829-30. Their efforts were directed towards shifting the political balance of power from east to west, whereby this purpose might be accomplished with less difficulty.[38]In this they were not successful. Likewise the east was dissatisfied over the apportionment of representation and the west did not want to accept the principle of taxation.[39]The question of the extension of suffrage was the only leading issue settled. This convention, like that of 1829-30, was essentially a compromise convention; for no permanent settlement of the great problems could be effected with the State virtually half slave and half free.

The Virginia policy during the period of 1850 to 1861 was influenced largely by the nation-wide idea that the question of slavery could be settled only by civil strife. Accordingly the Virginia politicians, and especially Governor Wise[40]during his term of office, were at great pains to connect Eastern Virginia in thought and in purpose with the slave-holding South. This was a period of great internal improvements in Virginia. The State incurred a bonded debt of thirty-six million dollars. Many of the loans constituting this debt were used to promote and facilitate the building of railroads and canals. The railroads in question, almost without exception, tended to connect Eastern Virginia socially, industrially and commercially with her neighbors to the south. On the other hand, the only large railroad of Western Virginia, the Baltimore and Ohio, was constantly discriminated against at Richmond[41]and in every session of the legislature restrictions were aimed at its activities. It is significant that the hostility to railroad facilities for the Northwest persisted down to the beginning of the Civil War.[42]

While Western Virginia was denied railroad facilities out of deference to southern and slave-holding interests, liberal appropriations were made for the building of turnpike roads in that territory.[43]This consideration tended to some extent to alleviate the feeling of dissatisfaction. The fact remained, however, that Western Virginia had become one in thought and in purpose with the people of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and she was influenced considerably by her intercourse with Baltimore. It was to these places that she had easy access. It followed, therefore, that in 1861 when Eastern Virginia seceded from the Union and went with the slave-holding States of the South, the western part of the State had little choice save to remain loyal to the Union.

In 1860 there were in all Virginia 498,887 slaves, of whom 12,771 were in the forty-eight counties originally constituting the State of West Virginia.[44]With an overwhelming majority of all the slaves in the State located in the East, the people of this section were, naturally enough, profoundly interested in the events then occurring in other pro-slavery commonwealths. Influenced by the secession of six States from the Union and their subsequent formation of the Confederate States of America, Governor Letcher issued a proclamation convening the General Assembly in extra session on the seventh day of January, 1861.[45]

According to the act of the Assembly, a state convention was assembled at Richmond on the thirteenth day of February. Forty-seven of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates present represented counties now included in the State of West Virginia.[46]On the sixteenth of April the Convention met in secret session and the chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations appointed early in February reported a measure entitled "An Ordinance to Repeal the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States."[47]The ordinance recited the reasons for the repeal of the ratification of the Federal Constitution, dissolved the union between Virginia and the other States, asserted the complete sovereignty of the State of Virginia, released her citizens from responsibility to the Federal Constitution, noted the date upon which and provided the conditions under which the said ordinance would become effective. It was adopted the next day by a vote of eighty-eight to fifty-five. Immediate steps were then taken to form an alliance with the Confederate States,[48]the same being effected on the twenty-fifth day of April. Meanwhile some of the delegatesfrom Western Virginia withdrew from the Convention.

When news of the action taken by the Richmond convention reached Northwestern Virginia a storm of protest arose. A vast majority of the citizens of this region were not in accord with the action of the State in seceding to the Confederacy. They were determined, therefore, that the part of the State known as the trans-Allegheny region should be saved to the Union. Resolutions emanating from the meetings held in the several counties joined with the press to denounce the action taken by the aforesaid convention. The Clarksburg[49]meeting, assembled for this purpose on the twenty-second of April, sounded the call for united action and proposed that a convention composed of the twenty-seven counties of Western Virginia should assemble at Wheeling on the thirteenth of May.

The May Convention assembled at the time and place indicated and proceeded straightway to the business of the hour. The permanent President, John W. Moss, of Wood county, outlined the purpose of the Convention.[50]His remarks were followed by a resolution of Mr. Tarr, of Brooke County, to the effect that "a Committee, to be known as the Committee on Federal and State Relations and to comprise one member from each County, be appointed by the President to consider all resolutions of the body looking to action by the Convention."[51]Significant among the numerous resolutions presented was one by John S. Carlile calling for a new Virginia,[52]but the sense of the Convention was that such action was premature.

Out of the maze of resolutions offered, the committee finally made its report. Among other provisions, the report recommended that in the event of the ratification, by vote, of the Ordinance of Secession, the counties there represented and all others disposed to co-operate with them, shouldappoint delegates on the fourth day of June to meet in general convention on the eleventh day of June at such place as thereinafter provided, with a view to devising such measures and taking such action as the people they represent might demand.[53]It was further recommended that a central committee be appointed to attend to all matters connected with the objects of the convention, to assemble it at their discretion and to prepare an address to the people of Virginia in conformity with the resolution there made.[54]

The passage, on the twenty-third day of May, of the Ordinance of Secession, necessitated the meeting of the second convention. It assembled on the eleventh of June at Wheeling. Upon the effecting of a permanent organization, Mr. Dorsey, of Monongalia, offered a resolution to the effect that immediate steps be taken to form a new State from the counties represented.[55]Mr. Carlile endeavored to show a lack of wisdom in such a course, saying: "Let us organize a legislature, swearing allegiance to the Federal Government, and let that legislature be recognized by the government of the United States as the legislature of the State of Virginia."[56]He urged that under that condition they would be under the protecting care of the Federal Government and would be in position to effect a constitutional separation from Virginia. His judgment prevailed.

The important acts of this Convention were: (1) the Declaration of Rights of the People of Virginia and its adoption;[57](2) the adoption of an Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State[58]and (3) the election of State Officers.[59]The Convention then adjourned.

On the sixth of August, the adjourned Convention reassembled, as provided, at Wheeling. The principal work of this convention was the adoption of an ordinance to providefor the formation of a new State out of a portion of the State of Virginia.[60]It provided also for an election to be held on the twenty-fourth of October (1) to ratify the ordinance there adopted and (2) to select delegates to a convention to frame a constitution for the new State, in case a majority of the voters should decide in favor of formation. The vote at this election was 18,408 for ratification and 481 for rejection. Accordingly, upon certification of the same to the governor, he issued his proclamation, calling the delegates elected to a constitutional convention to meet in Wheeling on the twenty-sixth of November.[61]

Back to Index Next