FOOTNOTES:

It is evident that in every feature, excepting the European faces, this object is obviously the product of a master. How, then, are we to account for the crude and archaic appearance of the European figures? It would seem either that it was done purposely out of disrespect for the European or else it was the result of an unfamiliarity with the subject on the part of the artist. If the African artist had been indebted to the European for his apprenticeship, it is highly improbable that either of the conditions present here would have been likely to occur.

In this same connection a statement by Ling Roth testifies that "the Beni almost invariably give their fellow Africans sturdy lower limbs while they do not do so invariably to Europeans. The latter of a certain type are made to stand on well planted feet, while such Europeans as are in any way about to use their guns have their legs bent and puny."

That the work of the African artist, when dealing with Europeans, was necessarily of an inferior grade must not be assumed to be the rule, however, though it does seem from the evidence that there is more unaccountable archaicness in objects of this character than in any others. Ling Roth, speaking in this same connection, calls attention to the fact that Benin was not discovered by the Portuguese until about 1472, and that by the middle of the sixteenth century (e.g., 1550) we have an almost perfect figure of a European, presumably made by a native. "It is inconceivable,"he concludes, "that an introduced art could have developed at so rapid a rate that in seventy years, probably less, for this art would hardly have been introduced the first day, such a high pitch of excellence could have been attained by the natives."

If the Portuguese theory is untenable, the Arabic or Islamic theory is equally, if not more, unacceptable. In the first place, as has already been pointed out, Arabic or Islamic art shows absolutely nothing in art approaching objects of the Benin type. Furthermore, Islam itself did not appear in Central Africa until the eleventh century, and then only in the northern and western parts of the Sudan. And it was, moreover, not until the fourteenth century that it made itself a real part of the life of the northern country, and not until the eighteenth that its influence spread into Yorubaland. And then its influence was only felt in the back country.[59]

Furthermore, according to Frobenius and Ling Roth, respectively, both the Ilifian region and the Benin territory remain until the present-day non-Mohammedan in character. This would seem to indicate Islamic influence in those countries where most of these objects above described were found has been necessarily very slight; yet such a culture as the above objects represent was unquestionably a very integral part of the life of the country and could not possibly have been due to such an influence. Furthermore, if additional evidence were needed to disprove the theory, it might be cited that it is a well-known fact that one of the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith is the proscription of the representation of the human form in its art in any whatsoever. And since the height of the material side of this culture was reached in this kind of art, it appears doubtful that this culture could have arisen from such a source.

It would seem, therefore, that this culture at least antedates the coming of the Portuguese and the Arab influencein this part of West Africa. To state definitely its place of origin, or the exact date of its origin, is at present, however, impossible, because of the relatively small amount of scientific work and study carried out in this part of the Continent. But in spite of this sufficient evidence is already available to warrant the opinion on the part of all the critics previously referred to that this culture is essentially African in origin and very, very old. Frobenius is convinced that it is at least pre-classical and pre-Christian in its beginning.

Such, then, and until now, is the character of the material culture of this restricted spot of Black Africa. What the future will bring let the future tell, but of this let the present be convinced: that at least this part of Black Africa isnot"beyond the reach of interest in the history of the world; always in a state of apathy asleep to progress and dreaming its day away." And of this may the present be ever sure that Black Africa isnot"a continent which has no mystery, nor history!"

William Leo Hansberry.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Quoted by Leo Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 1.[2]H. Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 217.[3]Jour. Anthrop. Inst., February, 1898, p. 371.[4]F. L. Lugard,A Tropical Dependency, p. 154.[5]Lugard,A Tropical Dependency, p. 154.[6]Translated into English by Rudolf Blind. Published by Hutchinson and Company, London, 1913.[7]Old Dutch and Portuguese manuscripts have been collected and studied by Ling Roth and the findings appear in hisGreat Beninquoted in this paper.[8]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 157.[9]Dr. Olfert Dapper, "Nauwkeurige. Beschrijvenge der Afrikansche Geweslen." (As listed and quoted by Ling Roth, inGreat Benin.)[10]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 2.[11]The Benin Massacre, p. 81.[12]Quoted by Roth inGreat Benin, p. 161.[13]Ibid., p. 162.[14]Ibid., p. 163.[15]Leo Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, pp. 21-25.[15a]Leo Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, pp. 21-25.[16]Le Plateau Central Nigerien, Paris, 1907.[17]Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 25.[18]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 193.[19]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 196.[20]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 205.[21]Ibid., p. 209.[22]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 209.[23]Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 297.[24]Ibid.[25]Ibid., p. 302.[26]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 305.[27]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 305.[28]Ibid., p. 105.[29]E. A. W. Budge,The Egyptian Sudan, Vol. 1, p. 526.[30]Fawckner,Travels on the Coast of Benin, London, 1837, p. 32.[31]A. B. Ellis,A History of the Gold Coast, p. 9.[32]Bowdich,Mission to Coomassee, p. 218. Quoted by Ellis.[33]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa.[34]It was such reports by the natives and the nature of the objects which they claimed to have found at this place that led Frobenius to excavate here. See pages 306-307 of hisVoice of Africa, Vol. 1.[35]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 309.[36]Ibid., p. 313.[37]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 313.[37a]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 313.[38]Ibid., p. 313.[39]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 313.[40]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 217.[41]Frobenius,Voice of Africa, p. 310.[42]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 31.[43]Ibid., p. 33.[44]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 225.[45]Ibid., p. 223.[46]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 223.[47]See an article by Dalton and Read in theJournal Anthrop. Inst., February, 1898, p. 372; also Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 216.[48]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 310.[49]"Works of art from Benin City,"Jour. Anthrop. Inst., 1898, p. 321.[50]Ibid.[51]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 226.[52]Jour. Anthrop. Inst., 1898, p. 372.[53]Ibid., p. 272.[54]Mission to Ashanti, pp. 311-312.[55]Haussaland, p. 118.[56]Quoted by Ling Roth, inGreat Benin, p. 232.[57]Ibid., p. 232.[58]Ibid., p. 219.[59]Lugard,A Tropical Dependency.

[1]Quoted by Leo Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 1.

[2]H. Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 217.

[3]Jour. Anthrop. Inst., February, 1898, p. 371.

[4]F. L. Lugard,A Tropical Dependency, p. 154.

[5]Lugard,A Tropical Dependency, p. 154.

[6]Translated into English by Rudolf Blind. Published by Hutchinson and Company, London, 1913.

[7]Old Dutch and Portuguese manuscripts have been collected and studied by Ling Roth and the findings appear in hisGreat Beninquoted in this paper.

[8]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 157.

[9]Dr. Olfert Dapper, "Nauwkeurige. Beschrijvenge der Afrikansche Geweslen." (As listed and quoted by Ling Roth, inGreat Benin.)

[10]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 2.

[11]The Benin Massacre, p. 81.

[12]Quoted by Roth inGreat Benin, p. 161.

[13]Ibid., p. 162.

[14]Ibid., p. 163.

[15]Leo Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, pp. 21-25.

[15a]Leo Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, pp. 21-25.

[16]Le Plateau Central Nigerien, Paris, 1907.

[17]Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 25.

[18]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 193.

[19]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 196.

[20]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 205.

[21]Ibid., p. 209.

[22]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 209.

[23]Frobenius,Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 297.

[24]Ibid.

[25]Ibid., p. 302.

[26]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 305.

[27]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 305.

[28]Ibid., p. 105.

[29]E. A. W. Budge,The Egyptian Sudan, Vol. 1, p. 526.

[30]Fawckner,Travels on the Coast of Benin, London, 1837, p. 32.

[31]A. B. Ellis,A History of the Gold Coast, p. 9.

[32]Bowdich,Mission to Coomassee, p. 218. Quoted by Ellis.

[33]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa.

[34]It was such reports by the natives and the nature of the objects which they claimed to have found at this place that led Frobenius to excavate here. See pages 306-307 of hisVoice of Africa, Vol. 1.

[35]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 309.

[36]Ibid., p. 313.

[37]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 313.

[37a]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 313.

[38]Ibid., p. 313.

[39]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, p. 313.

[40]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 217.

[41]Frobenius,Voice of Africa, p. 310.

[42]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 31.

[43]Ibid., p. 33.

[44]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 225.

[45]Ibid., p. 223.

[46]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 223.

[47]See an article by Dalton and Read in theJournal Anthrop. Inst., February, 1898, p. 372; also Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 216.

[48]Frobenius,The Voice of Africa, Vol. 1, p. 310.

[49]"Works of art from Benin City,"Jour. Anthrop. Inst., 1898, p. 321.

[50]Ibid.

[51]Ling Roth,Great Benin, p. 226.

[52]Jour. Anthrop. Inst., 1898, p. 372.

[53]Ibid., p. 272.

[54]Mission to Ashanti, pp. 311-312.

[55]Haussaland, p. 118.

[56]Quoted by Ling Roth, inGreat Benin, p. 232.

[57]Ibid., p. 232.

[58]Ibid., p. 219.

[59]Lugard,A Tropical Dependency.

It was in the United States Senate, during the summer of 1919, that there was in progress a debate concerning the ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany and the consequent ratification of the covenant of the League of Nations. Speaking to this question the words of Senator William Edgar Borah of Idaho were, in substance, these: "The President of the United States has said that if we fail to ratify the covenant of the League of Nations we will 'break the heart of the world.' ... But, sir, failure to ratify this covenant will not break the heart of China, which constitutes a third of the world; it will not break the heart of India;it will not break the hearts of the natives of the South African Republics."

How could the Senator from Idaho state so confidently that the failure of the League of Nations, under which Great Britain retained her rôle as protector of British South Africa, would not be a source of grief to the natives of the republics thus protected? What is the status, political, economic and social, of these people? For what do they stand on the African continent? How have they withstood the characteristic onslaught of British colonization and imperialism? What does "the autonomous development of small nations" mean to them? Any reasonable attempt to answer questions of this nature necessitates a review, however brief it may be, of the history of South African colonization by the English and of its relation to the native.

British South Africa, which occupies the entire southern horn of the African continent, from the southern coast to the Zambesi River, and from the Indian Ocean on the east to the Atlantic on the west, has a population of about6,500,000 people, fully five-sixths of whom are of Negro extraction, the other one-sixth being of European—British and Boer. It is a "southern black belt" in every sense of the term, and its Negro or Negroid inhabitants belong to the subdivision of the race to which ethnologists have given the name "Bantu," a native African word meaning "the people." Their origin is unknown, and no authentic history of their racial and tribal movements is available. All that is known of their past is what has been gleaned by surmise and deduction from the condition in which they were found by missionaries and traders making their way into South Africa. A nomadic, patriarchally governed people—polygamists, ancestor-worshipers, tillers of the soil, sheep-raisers, raiders upon neighboring tribes—such were the primitive Bantu. Let the reader substitute "Bantu" for "Germani" in Tacitus's classic description, or for "Britons" in any accurate portrayal of the manners and customs of the early inhabitants of the British Isles, and he will catch the truespiritof life as it was among the primitive Bantu before the advent of the European missionary and trader.

The missionary, first as civilizer and educator, later as protagonist of the political rights of the Bantu, has been a potent factor in their development. "To the Bantu, perhaps more than to any other people," says Mr. S. M. Molema, himself a member of that race, "the missionaries have stood for civilization, Christianization and education."[2]Niggardly and inadequate governmental appropriations for common schools have been supplemented by missionary funds, and in many cases missionary funds alone have supported and are still supporting native schools. "In short, every educated member of the Bantu race, no matter how great or small his education may be, is directly or indirectly a product of the mission school."[3]This fact should be borne in mind whenever one considers the relations which exist between the native and the government.The Bantu feel that the missionary, and not the government, is responsible for their enlightenment, and it is to the missionary that their gratitude is poured out.

What has been the attitude of the other class of Dutch and British newcomers, of the trader and colonist group, toward the natives whom they found living under native law and custom? Some will call it a credit, others a discredit, to the European regime that more than a century and a half passed before any inroads were made upon native independence and sovereignty. Members of the Dutch East India Company, under Jan van Riebeek, landed on the Cape of Good Hope as early as 1652; the British occupied the Cape in 1806, but it was not until 1846 that any portion of the South African territory came under British control. Before this time the Boer and Briton had been bent almost solely upon the establishment of amicable and successful trade relations with the natives. The Boer had come to the Cape to find an ocean port for his vessels, and while it is true that wars were waged between Boer and Bantu for the duration of a century, the natives were only driven inland and no attempt was made to establish European sovereignty over them.

In 1806, however, the British obtained final control of the Cape, and in 1846 put an end to their former policy of "hands off" by making a British province, called Kaffraria, of all the country lying between the Kei and the Keiskama Rivers. In 1865 this province was formally annexed to and incorporated in the English state, called Cape Colony, which had been set up on the Cape. From this time colony after colony was formed, annexed and incorporated by both British and Boers, the latter of whom had marched northward in "the Great Trek" of 1836. The Boers formed the Republic of Natal in 1838, but moved out in 1842, and Natal was annexed to the British Cape Colony in 1844. The Boers, continuing northward, next set up Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The constitution of the latter bears the date 1854, and of the former 1858.

Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State, then, are the South African States which were set up by British and Boer—now five-sixths Negro and one-sixth European in population. An examination of the constitutions and laws of these republics, as they appear on the statute books and in practice, reveals that the relationship between European and native has not been the same in all of the states.

Cape Colony, farthest south and the oldest of the four states, was founded upon the principle of political equality of all inhabitants, black and white. A proclamation of the Duke of Newcastle (1853) contained the following statement:

"It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government that all her subjects at the Cape, without distinction of class or colour, should be united by one bond of loyalty, and we believe that the exercise of political rights by all alike will prove one of the best methods of attaining this object."[4]

At the first, every activity of the British colonizers seemed to be pointing toward the day when they would relinquish all direct governmental authority and turn it over into the hands of the natives. Districts were under the control of native boards elected by popular vote and sending representatives to the Grand Council. Black and white alike shared the privilege of franchise. Such social distinctions as were made were personal, not sanctioned by law.

Natal is likewise a British colony, but from the first has adopted a policy toward the native entirely different from that of Cape Colony. Politically shrewd, she does not flatly deny the right of the native to vote, but by carefully worded legal phraseology so limits the voting class that, in effect, her policy is "No votes for natives." Under date of August24, 1865, appears a law "disqualifyingcertainnatives from exercising electoral franchise" (the italics are in all cases ours). The following extract is taken from this law:

"Be it therefore enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Natal, etc., as follows:"1. Every male native, resident in this Colony, or having the necessary property qualifications therein, whether subject to the operation of the native laws, customs and usages in force in this Colony or exempted therefrom save as in this law provided, shall be disqualified from becoming a duly registered elector, and shall not be entitled to vote at the election of a member of the Legislative Council for any electoral district of the Colony of Natal."[5]

"Be it therefore enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Natal, etc., as follows:

"1. Every male native, resident in this Colony, or having the necessary property qualifications therein, whether subject to the operation of the native laws, customs and usages in force in this Colony or exempted therefrom save as in this law provided, shall be disqualified from becoming a duly registered elector, and shall not be entitled to vote at the election of a member of the Legislative Council for any electoral district of the Colony of Natal."[5]

Certain natives, however, may vote. The conditions of their voting are these:

"2. Any male native inhabitant of this Colony who shall show to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant-Governor that he has been resident in this Colony for a period of twelve years, ... and who shall possess the requisite property qualifications, and shall have been exempted from the operation of Native Law for a period of seven years, and who shall produce to the Lieutenant-Governor a certificate signed by three duly qualified electorsof European origin... a statement to the effect that the Justice or Magistrate endorsing said certificate has no reason to doubt the truth of said certificate, ... shall be entitledto petition the Lieutenant-Governorof Natal for a certificate to entitle him to be registered as a duly qualified elector...."5. The Lieutenant-Governor may,at his discretion, grant or refuseto any native applying in manner aforesaid for such certificate entitling him to be registered as a duly qualified elector...."[6]

"5. The Lieutenant-Governor may,at his discretion, grant or refuseto any native applying in manner aforesaid for such certificate entitling him to be registered as a duly qualified elector...."[6]

This franchise law was amended in 1863, as follows:

"6. No person belonging to a class which is placed by special legislation under the jurisdiction of Special Courts, or is subject to special laws and tribunals, shall be entitled to be placed on the Voters' List...."[7]

When it is understood that special laws for natives, and for natives only, are actually a part of the Natal Code, the effect of this amendment may be seen.

Transvaal and the Orange Free State

The two republics founded by the Boers have at least the virtue of frankness in their make-up; for, without the circumlocution of their neighbors in Natal, they flatly and expressly withhold from the native all rights of citizenship. The following extracts from Transvaal law are sufficient evidence of this fact:

From the Grondwet (or Constitution) of Transvaal (February, 1858):

"9. The people desire to permit no equality between coloured and white inhabitants,either in church or state.. . . . . . . . ."31. ... No coloured person or half-castes shall be admitted to our meetings."

"9. The people desire to permit no equality between coloured and white inhabitants,either in church or state.

. . . . . . . . .

"31. ... No coloured person or half-castes shall be admitted to our meetings."

From a law of June 12, 1876:

"No person not regarded as belonging to the white population of the South African Republic shall be enrolled as a burgher possessing the franchise according to Article 9 of the Grondwet."[8]

A resolution of the Volksraad, June 18, 1885, runs thus:

"159. When a male person has been recognized as a burgher of this Republic, his wife shall thereby also be recognized and remain a burgheress of this Republic."All coloured people are excluded from this provision, and (in accordance with the Grondwet) they may never be given or granted rights of burghership...."

"159. When a male person has been recognized as a burgher of this Republic, his wife shall thereby also be recognized and remain a burgheress of this Republic.

"All coloured people are excluded from this provision, and (in accordance with the Grondwet) they may never be given or granted rights of burghership...."

So much for Transvaal. The Constitution of the Orange Free State, adopted April 10, 1854, contains a provision restricting the right of suffrage by incorporating throughout the law the term all white persons. In short, the Boer plainly and bluntly disdains to use the diplomaticphraseology of the British statesman. He shuts the door of hope in the native's face, without apology or equivocation.

Such was the state of affairs in 1910, Cape Colony granting absolute citizenship to all inhabitants, Natal cleverly refusing it to natives, Transvaal and the Orange Free State flatly withholding it. In 1910, however, long-continued propaganda in favor of bringing the Boer and British states together, to be thenceforth under a common government, bore fruit, and the four republics united to form the Union of South Africa.

The day of the passage of the act of union (called the South Africa Act) was an ill one for the South African native. Cape Colony, the one benevolent and fair-minded state, could not help but be over-ruled by the three states whose policy toward the native was one of oppression and political non-representation. Hence the South Africa Act (1909) contains the following provisions:

"IV.—(26) The qualifications of a senator shall be as follows—He must.............be a British subjectof European descent.. . . . . . . . .36. ... the qualifications of parliamentary voters, as existing in the several colonies, at the establishment of the Union, shall be the qualifications necessary to entitle persons in the corresponding provinces to vote for the election of members of the House of Assembly.. . . . . . . . .44. The qualifications of a member of the House of Assembly shall be as follows—He must ... be a British subjectof European descent."[9]

"IV.—(26) The qualifications of a senator shall be as follows—He must.............be a British subjectof European descent.

. . . . . . . . .

36. ... the qualifications of parliamentary voters, as existing in the several colonies, at the establishment of the Union, shall be the qualifications necessary to entitle persons in the corresponding provinces to vote for the election of members of the House of Assembly.

. . . . . . . . .

44. The qualifications of a member of the House of Assembly shall be as follows—He must ... be a British subjectof European descent."[9]

In other words, no native can be a member of the South African Parliament. Even if the natives of Cape Colony, who have the right of franchise under section 36 above; forthey had it "at the establishment of the Union"—even if they should elect one of their number to represent them, such duly elected person could not be seated. Under the laws of the Union, then, the Cape Colony right of franchise has been nullified and "the Bantu and coloured people in the Provinces of Natal, Transvaal and Orange Free State are unrepresented in the Union Parliament, and those of the Cape Province are but indirectly represented. The five million coloured peoples in the Union have no direct representation, and the one million, five hundred thousand white people have all the representation and say."[10]

Now, although the natives are not eligible for election to the South African Parliament, they have a deliberative body, known as the South African Native National Congress, to which native representatives are sent from all districts. With no legislative authority, however, this body can onlydiscusslegislative measures which have been proposed before the South African Parliament when such measures affect the natives, and it may use "all available constitutional methods" for or against the proposed measures. But of what avail to protest against a law when the persons to whom the protest must be made are those who have enacted the law? An appeal to the British government would be useless, for the British government has declared that the Union of South Africa is "self-governing."

Such, in brief, is the political status of the Negro in British South Africa, and the government of Great Britain, having set up "self-governing South Africa," has thus far refused to come to the rescue of the natives. As a member of the British Parliament said during the debate on the Union Bill, "it [the proposal for unification] is the unification of the white races to disfranchise the coloured races, and not to promote union between all races in South Africa." The passage of the Union Bill sounded the political death knell of the South African native.

His economic condition is equally as disheartening.When the Union was set up, native employees of the government in the railway, post office, telegraph and civil service systems were discharged in large numbers and their places were given to Europeans. Enforced labor of natives is statutory in Natal, and a tax upon natives, from which they are exempted upon certification that they have worked for a certain number of months during the year, is levied throughout Cape Colony. The most iniquitous feature of the economic status of the native South African, however, is that which resulted from the passage, in 1913, of the Natives' Land Act "to take effective measures to restrict the purchase and lease of land by natives" by setting apart certain areas in which natives were not permitted to acquire land. It assigned approximately 21,500,000 acres of land to the 5,000,000 natives, reserving 275,000,000 acres for the 1,500,000 white inhabitants. Natives who were living within the area set aside for white inhabitants had to sell their grain and stock and either move their families to an area assigned to natives or hire themselves out to white men. This condition has existed, moreover, since 1913. Recently, however, the Natives' Land Act has been declared to be without effect, because its provisions conflict with those of the original South Africa Act; but, as Mr. Molema remarks, the South Africa Act is easily amended. There is nothing in the past record of the Union to indicate that an amendment to cover the Natives' Land Act will not be incorporated in the Constitution, thus making the natives' serfdom permanent.

Since the native South African is a political and economic nonentity, it is not surprising to note that, socially, he is on one side of a great gulf fixed between him and his white neighbors. The South African native is indeed a social outcast. Portions of the following extract, describing social relations in South Africa, should ring familiarly in American ears:

"The peculiar colour-prejudice of South Africa ... finds expression everywhere—in the streets, in the public buildings, in thepublic conveyances, in the press, nay, in the church itself. Thus, if a black man were to try to get into an hotel, let his education be what it will, he would be refused admission; but supposing he did manage to enter somehow, if he appeared at table, all the whites would leave it.... All over South Africa whites will not mix with blacks in railway compartments, tramcars or post-carts...."Bantu children and European children are provided with separate schools." ... On that lavatory you see written 'Gentlemen,' and there only white men may go. On that other lavatory you see written 'Amadoda' (men), and this is meant for black men."One would expect that the distinction would not go the length of the church, but it does so with sober earnestness...."Theaveragewhite man in South Africa would never think of shaking hands with a black man. The ordinary terms of courtesy are purposely avoided by him, and such a prefix as 'Mr.' or 'Mrs.' in association with a black man's or woman's name never escapes his lips...."'A single case of marriage between white and black by Christian rites will fill the newspapers with columns of indignant protest, but illicit intercourse, even permanent concubinage, will pass unnoticed.'"[11]

"Bantu children and European children are provided with separate schools.

" ... On that lavatory you see written 'Gentlemen,' and there only white men may go. On that other lavatory you see written 'Amadoda' (men), and this is meant for black men.

"One would expect that the distinction would not go the length of the church, but it does so with sober earnestness....

"Theaveragewhite man in South Africa would never think of shaking hands with a black man. The ordinary terms of courtesy are purposely avoided by him, and such a prefix as 'Mr.' or 'Mrs.' in association with a black man's or woman's name never escapes his lips....

"'A single case of marriage between white and black by Christian rites will fill the newspapers with columns of indignant protest, but illicit intercourse, even permanent concubinage, will pass unnoticed.'"[11]

The American Negro, it may be said, habitually thinks of himself as the most unfortunate of God's creatures, but his South African brother is still more unfortunate. Separate schools, separate churches, separate waiting-rooms, "jim crow cars"—with these the American Negro is familiar. With few exceptions, however, he may work independently, unlike the South African native, and at his own calling. He may acquire as much property as he can pay for. If he will "go North" for his education, he may sit at the feet of the best scholars his country produces. Direct representation in state legislative bodies is not unknown to him, and direct representation from some districts to the National Congress seems to be at hand. The trend of the American Negro is upward, but the South African native remains on an unchanging plane of misery and oppression.For the American Negro, in spite of discrimination, lynching and riot, the star of hope shines with ever-increasing luster, but its beams, at the present time, seem scarcely to reach his South African brother. The British protectorate of self-governing South Africa has not been a boon to the South African native, for the home government has abandoned him to the hands of his oppressors.

D. A. Lane, Jr.

FOOTNOTES:[1]The facts concerning South Africa herein given are obtained from select constitutional documents in the appendix ofThe Bantu, by S. M. Molema. This book was published by W. Green and Son, Ltd., Edinburgh, 1920.[2]Molema,The Bantu, p. 220.[3]Ibid., p. 237.[4]Molema,The Bantu, p. 241.[5]Molema,The Bantu(appendix), p. 378.[6]Ibid.[7]Ibid., p. 378.[8]Molema,The Bantu, p. 368.[9]Molema,The Bantu(appendix), p. 384.[10]Molema,The Bantu, pp. 245-246.[11]Molema,The Bantu, pp. 264-266.

[1]The facts concerning South Africa herein given are obtained from select constitutional documents in the appendix ofThe Bantu, by S. M. Molema. This book was published by W. Green and Son, Ltd., Edinburgh, 1920.

[2]Molema,The Bantu, p. 220.

[3]Ibid., p. 237.

[4]Molema,The Bantu, p. 241.

[5]Molema,The Bantu(appendix), p. 378.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Ibid., p. 378.

[8]Molema,The Bantu, p. 368.

[9]Molema,The Bantu(appendix), p. 384.

[10]Molema,The Bantu, pp. 245-246.

[11]Molema,The Bantu, pp. 264-266.

Somewhat early in the history of Christianity the thought became manifest that it was at least questionable for one to hold a fellow-Christian in slavery. This went so far that at length it became "fireside law" that the baptism of a pagan slaveipso factoeffected his emancipation. There was no foundation for this view in positive law, but it appears from time to time in non-legal and quasi-legal writings.

For example,The Mirror of Justice, written in Norman French in Plantagenet times, about the end of the thirteenth century, has it: "Serfs devenent francs en plusours maneres, ascuns par baptesme sicom est de ceux Sarrazins qe sont pris de Christiens ou achatez e amenes par de sa la meer de Grece e tenent cum lur serfs ...";i.e., "Slaves become free in various ways—some by baptism, as is the case with those Saracens who are captured by Christians or purchased and brought from beyond the Sea of Greece and held as their slaves."The Mirror, while received as high authority even by so learned and capable a lawyer as Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England, is now quite discredited, the latest editor, Sir Frederick Maitland, going so far as to say of the author, "The right to lie he exercises unblushingly."

Nevertheless the book, while nearly, if not quite, worthless as an authority as to what the law actually was, is very valuable as showing what an intelligent layman at the time thought it was. The fear that baptism set a slave free was undoubtedly present among both the French and the English planters in America, including the West Indies; and this fear had much to do with their determined objection to missionary effort among the slave population. The Code Noir relieved the fears of the French in this regard;but I find no legislation on the matter in the English Settlements until 1781.

Prince Edward Island (formerly the Island of St. John) had a number of slaves, as had the other British North American Colonies; and in 1781 the Legislature of the Province passed an act respecting them (21 George III, c. 15 (P. E. I.)). This act, with the others passed in the same session, was transmitted by Governor Walter Patterson to the Home Government in a dispatch, March 1, 1781, to Lord Stormont (Earl of Mansfield), in which he says: "There will be no need to trouble your Lordship with more than the titles of the above-recited acts to show the reasons which induced me to consent to their becoming laws." From a perusal of the act it will at once be seen that the statute went far beyond the title and fixed the status of slavery upon "all Negro and Mulatto servants" then on the island, or thereafter to be imported (being slaves), and provided that they should continue to be slaves until freed by the owner. The act reads:

"An Actdeclaring that baptism of slaves shall not exempt them from bondage."Whereassome Doubts have arisen whether Slaves by becoming Christians, or being admitted to Baptism, should, by Virtue thereof, be made free:"1. Be it therefore enacted by the Governor, Council and Assembly, That all Slaves, whether Negroes or Mulattos, residing at present on this Island, or that may hereafter be imported or brought therein, shall be deemed Slaves, notwithstanding his, her or their Conversion to Christianity; nor shall the Act of Baptism performed on any such Negro or Mulatto alter his, her or their Condition."2. And be it further enacted, That all Negro and Mulatto Servants who are now on this Island, or may hereafter be imported or brought therein (being Slaves), shall continue such, unless freed by his, her or their respective Owners."3. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all Children born of Women Slaves shall belong to and be the property of the Masters or Mistresses of such Slaves."

"An Actdeclaring that baptism of slaves shall not exempt them from bondage.

"Whereassome Doubts have arisen whether Slaves by becoming Christians, or being admitted to Baptism, should, by Virtue thereof, be made free:

"1. Be it therefore enacted by the Governor, Council and Assembly, That all Slaves, whether Negroes or Mulattos, residing at present on this Island, or that may hereafter be imported or brought therein, shall be deemed Slaves, notwithstanding his, her or their Conversion to Christianity; nor shall the Act of Baptism performed on any such Negro or Mulatto alter his, her or their Condition.

"2. And be it further enacted, That all Negro and Mulatto Servants who are now on this Island, or may hereafter be imported or brought therein (being Slaves), shall continue such, unless freed by his, her or their respective Owners.

"3. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all Children born of Women Slaves shall belong to and be the property of the Masters or Mistresses of such Slaves."

This statute had absolutely no effect to stay the evolutionof a strong public opinion against the institution of slavery. The latest recorded sale of a slave was in 1802, and slavery gradually died out as a fact, although it was possible in law until the Imperial Act of 1833, freeing all slaves under the British flag.

Before the culminating emancipation act, however, the Provincial Legislature had repealed the obnoxious statute of 1781. The act of 1825, 5 George IV, c. 7 (P. E. I.), reads:

"An Act, to repeal an Act, made and passed in the twenty-first year of His late Majesty's Reign, intituled 'An Act declaring thatBaptism of Slavesshall not exempt them fromBondage.'"Whereasby the aforesaid Act Slavery is sanctioned and permitted within this Island, and it is highly necessary that an Act so entirely in variance with the laws of England and the Freedom of the Country should be forthwith repealed, and Slavery forever hereafter abolished in this Colony."Be it therefore enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council and Assembly, That from and after the passing hereof the said Act, intituled 'An Act declaring that Baptism of Slaves shall not exempt them from Bondage,' and every Clause, Matter and thing therein contained, be, and the same is hereby, repealed."Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall have any effect until His Majesty's Pleasure shall be known."

"An Act, to repeal an Act, made and passed in the twenty-first year of His late Majesty's Reign, intituled 'An Act declaring thatBaptism of Slavesshall not exempt them fromBondage.'

"Whereasby the aforesaid Act Slavery is sanctioned and permitted within this Island, and it is highly necessary that an Act so entirely in variance with the laws of England and the Freedom of the Country should be forthwith repealed, and Slavery forever hereafter abolished in this Colony.

"Be it therefore enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council and Assembly, That from and after the passing hereof the said Act, intituled 'An Act declaring that Baptism of Slaves shall not exempt them from Bondage,' and every Clause, Matter and thing therein contained, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

"Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall have any effect until His Majesty's Pleasure shall be known."

The act was transmitted by the Lieutenant-Governor, Colonel John Ready, in a dispatch to Secretary of State George Canning, of date November 8, 1825, in which he says: "The preamble explains the reasons for passing this act." The bill received the Royal approval and became law. But it will be seen that, while the act of 1781 went further than its preamble, that of 1825 fell far short. It did not abolish slavery, but simply repealed the previous act.

William Renwick Riddell.

Osgoode Hall,Toronto, March 24, 1921.

From the Proceedings of the American Convention of Abolition Societies may be obtained valuable information in the form of the reports as to slavery, the appeal of the anti-slavery groups to Congress, and their addresses to the citizens of the United States. There is unconsciously given in these documents most interesting facts as to what the Negro was doing and what was being done for him. The important documents falling within these three groups follow.

The Report of the Committee on the State of Slavery in the United States, being again considered, was amended and adopted as follows.

To the American Convention for the Abolition of Slavery, Ec.

The committee appointed (at the last session of the Convention) on the state of slavery in the United States, beg leave to report as follows:

Your committee were rather at a loss to perceive the precise design of the Convention, in the appointment of a committee on the state of slavery in the United States. But have thought proper to review the subject; first with reference to its progress; secondly in reference to the situation or treatment of slaves; and thirdly in reference to the prospect of its diminution or final removal.

First. In reference to the progress of slavery in the United States, your committee find that at the time of the first census under the Constitution in 1790, there were 694,280 slaves in the Union. These were with the exception of about 40,000, confined to a surface of about 212,000 square miles. In 1800, the number was 889,118 on a surface of 289,000 square miles or nearly so! In 1810, the number was increased to 1,191,364 and covered an extent of territory of about 431,000 square miles! At the time of the last census in 1820, the slaves in the United States and territories amounted to 1,538,178, and your committee have good reason to believe that the number at the present time or at the census of 1830, will be foundto be about two millions, occupying a territory including Arkansas, of nearly 600,000 square miles!!

Your committee have been surprised at the result of their own enquiries, for they had fondly hoped that the dreadful evil was if not diminishing, at least advancing with less rapidity. From various estimates, on which your committee place much reliance, they are confirmed in the opinion, that the increase (independent of clandestine importations) must amount at the present time to at least near 50,000 per annum.

As this increase like that of population generally, is in its nature, a geometrical progression, it must continue to augment, as long as subsistence can be obtained. This view of the subject is truly alarming; but when we consider the extent of territory which is overspread by this foul blot on the map of our beloved country, the heart sickens at the prospect.

To behold 600,000 square miles of the best land in North America, teeming with slaves,—a surface greater, than that of many European kingdoms, held too by men who are constantly boasting of their love of liberty; sending up daily to Heaven, the sighs and groans of millions of broken hearts, while the sweat and tears and even the blood of thousands moisten its soil, must excite deep emotion in every breast, not dead to those feelings which become the patriot, or animate the Christian. But furthermore your committee are of opinion that if the scheme, of adding a large portion of Mexican territory, to our south-western border, should be consummated, the price of slaves will be so enhanced and the facilities of smuggling so much increased, that the African slave trade will be greatly augmented, as well as the practice of kidnapping in the more eastern parts of our own country. So that upon the whole, your committee are of opinion, that slavery is fearfully on the increase, and that every effort is making, by many of those interested in its continuance, to multiply its victims and extend its influence. This state of things calls loudly on every friend of his country, on every friend of man, to use every effort in his power, to arrest the torrent of misery and crime.

Secondly. On the treatment of slaves,—your committee have long indulged an opinion which they believe is common with their fellow-citizens, that slaves in this country are somewhat better treated than formerly. This opinion seems to prevail to an extent which your committee fear, is not sustained by facts. A writer inNiles's Register for 1818, says, speaking on this subject, "The favourable change which has occurred in the treatment of negro slaves in this state (Maryland) since the revolution, must be to every benevolent mind a source of very agreeable reflections, our oldest citizens well remember when it was very customary to inflict on the manacled and naked person of the slave, the most intolerable punishments for very trivial offences.Within the last twenty yearsit has been the practice to muster all the slaves on a farm once a week, and distribute to each his peck of corn, leaving him to walk several miles, to some neighbours hand mill, to grind it himself, under cover of night, when exhausted nature called for rest from the labours of the day; in many cases they received not an atom of animal food, and their usual bedding was a plank, or by particular kindness a single blanket."

The above writer does not specify any particulars in which the improvement spoken of is apparent, but we think all will admit that a very considerable improvement might be accomplished, and yet the treatment might be such as could not be calledgood. He adds however that "much remains to be done, which the obligation ofhumanityrequire."

Your committee are of opinion, that in consequence of what has been written, spoken, and done by the friends of abolition, much light has been diffused through the community even in the slave holding states, and many masters restrained by the force of public opinion, thus enlightened, have abstained from cruelties which they would otherwise have inflicted; yet we cannot but believe, that very much anguish of heart, and exquisite sufferings of body are endured by this unhappy race, even in Maryland: (and we believe they are used as well here, as in any other part of our country.)

The multitudes that are annually sold to the southern markets, by which parents and children are violently separated, and all the ties of consanguinity rent asunder, if no other indication of bad treatment were discovered; would itself speak volumes.

The treatment of slaves may be estimated with some degree of accuracy by the laws which are in force respecting them. The laws of the land are always understood to be intended for the protection of the subject, but with respect to negro slaves (in the slave states) they have an effect directly the reverse. So far from securing him in the enjoyment of happiness, his very life is placed at the mercy of any white man, (especially of his master or overseer) who maytake the opportunity to kill him in the absence of any other free white person. Resistance to the will of the master, may be punished with stripes, and if the resistance amount to striking, may be punished by imprisonment and whipping; and for a third offence the slave may suffer death! It will be perceived that by the operation of those laws, a virtuous female slave, may suffer death for defending her chastity against the ruffian assaults of a debauchee. The manner in which those laws are administered in some of the states, frequently occasions great outrages upon the common charities of our nature. The discretion rested in a court of two or three freeholders, or a single magistrate, over the persons of the accused is often exercised with great severity. In Stroud's Slave Laws, we have an account of the burning to death of a negro woman, under a law of South Carolina, so late as 1820. (See page 124, in the note.)

It appears also that the mental improvement of the slave is a thing generally deprecated by the master, and in some cases provided against by law. (See Niles's Register, April 21, 1821.)

How deplorable must be the state of that community, which supposed its safety to depend on keeping one half of its members totally ignorant, and not even able to read the Holy Scripture.

How contrary to the nature of man? how offensive in the sight of that God who "has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth!"

It furthermore appears that in transporting slaves from one part of the nation to another, either in the domestic slave trade or in large bodies by removals of planters, &c. they are usually chained and handcuffed, or otherwise manacled, like the vilest criminals, &c. &c.

In considering the treatment of slaves, your committee deem it necessary to notice the amount and quality of labour required of them. In some cases this is known to be extremely severe, and attended with many aggravating circumstances. Such as scarcity of supplies which are sometimes insufficient, and frequently of very inferior quality: exposure to disease, and want of proper attention in the incipient states of sickness. The cultivation of rice one of the great staples of the Carolinas, is an instance to illustrate this point. Mr. Adams in his Geography says, "the cultivation is wholly by negroes. No work can be imagined more laborious or more prejudicial to health. They are obliged to stand in wateroften times mid-leg high, exposed to the scorching heat of the sun, and breathing an atmosphere poisoned by the unwholesome effluvia of an oozy bottom and stagnant water."

It appears therefore, that in the treatment of slaves in general, as well as in the legal provisions respecting them, the interest, convenience, security and inclinations of the master, constitute the only object in view; the comfort or even safety or health of the slave makes no part of the consideration, any further than it is supposed, to promote one or the other of the former. Finally after taking a rapid view of this part of the subject, your committee are led to doubt whether the evils of slavery are materially lessened in certain portions of our beloved country, notwithstanding all that has been done in favour of manumission, colonization and abolition of the slave trade, &c. &c. and what it might have been at this time, if no efforts had been made to arrest its progress, is beyond human wisdom to determine.

Thirdly, In reference to the diminution or the final extinction of slavery in the Union, your committee remark, that it seems to be the expectation of all, that it must at some period cease to exist, an evil so tremendous—a practice so completely at war with all the principles of justice, mercy and truth, so repugnant to all the best feelings of human nature, and fraught with such fearful consequences to society; cannot but excite in every reflecting mind a strong desire that it should be removed. In view of the divine government, which rules all with justice and righteousness, the human mind is naturally led to expect that such oppression and cruelty must have an end.

But how this revolution in society is to be brought about, perhaps no human foresight can yet divine. If our slave holding fellow citizens could be induced to establish schools for the instruction of the rising generation among the blacks, and thus qualify them for self government, which every principle of equity requires they should do, and to teach them by precept and example the importance of moral obligation; one of the greatest obstacles would be removed. If they would introduce among them a sacred regard for the social duties, arising from marriage, and from the relations subsisting between parents and children; they might with perfect safety and great advantage to the state, be emancipated. A few years of effort of this kind, would form a class of men from whom the nation would not only have nothing to fear; but on whomshe could safely rely for aid in her greatest emergency. In their present condition of abject slavery what can be expected of them, but that they should lay hold on every apparent opportunity, of regaining their freedom, and ever retorting on the masters the evils they have suffered?

Facts uniformly sustain this position; what multitudes of slaves joined the enemy during his temporary invasions of our southern coasts in the late war, notwithstanding all the efforts of the whites to prevent it? While on the contrary none were found more efficient in repelling his attacks than the free blacks of the south. Such was their zeal and valour in defence of Louisiana, that General Jackson, the present Chief Magistrate of the Union; bestowed on them the following eulogium.

"To the Men of Colour."

"Soldiers! From the shores of Mobile I collected you to arms; I invited you to share in the perils, and to divide the glory of your white countrymen. I expected much from you, for I was not uninformed of those qualities which must render you formidable to an invading enemy. I knew that you could endure hunger and thirst, and all the hardships of war.—I knew that you loved the land of your nativity! and that like ourselves you had to defend all that is dear to man. But yousurpass my hopes. I found in you united to those qualities, that noble enthusiasm which impels to great deeds." In a subsequent communication, the General in numerating the officers whose commands had distinguished themselves, makes honourable mention of the one who led these troops in the different actions of that memorable campaign. There are many circumstances which encourage the hope, that the time is drawing nigh when the African race shall enjoy the sweets of liberty. Their successful attempt at self government in St. Domingo, under so many disadvantages, the abolition of slavery in several of the South American provinces, and recently in Mexico, and the efforts of the British nation in their behalf, together with many other co-operating causes seem to indicate the interposition of Divine Providence in favour of the oppressed. InhisAlmighty hand, the most inefficient causes sometimes produce the most astonishing effects, and often the very means made use of to rivet the chains of oppression are so overruled by Him as to burst the bonds they were designed to perpetuate. We may therefore rest assuredthat He will in his own good time crown our labours with complete success, by bringing deliverance to the captive "and the opening of the prison doors to them that are bound." In the mean time let every friend of the cause remember that he has a duty to perform. Let the result be what it may, he is equally bound to oppose as far as possible, the growing evil.

It becomes us therefore to enquire how this may most effectually be done. Our opposition should be peaceable but firm. It should be the opposition of brothers not of enemies, it may be shewn by acts of kindness and forbearance, but itmust be oppositionand itmust be shown. It may exhibit itself in peaceable efforts to protect the rights of free blacks, and instructing their offspring, or it may be shown by rational attempts to enlighten the public mind on the subject, or in encouragement of those publications that are so employed; or by memorials to congress and the state legislature, &c. &c.

Our means of considerable efficiency for exciting the public mind to the consideration of the injustice and impolicy of slavery, may probably be found in the persevering efforts now making on the part of many friends of abolition to encourage the creation and consumption of the products of free labour.

We cannot withhold the tribute of our respect and admiration from those patriotic females, who have associated for this purpose both in England and America, and heartily, recommend their example, as one worthy of universal imitation.[1]

Wm. Kesley,Chairman.

Back to Index Next