Chapter XVI: Part 16

But even if Mr. Evans had been the man described by Mr. Rhodes, it would have been manifestly unfair and unjust to the colored voters of Mississippi to select him as a typical representative of those who were elected to important and responsible positions by the votes of colored men. Out of seventy-two counties of which the State was then composed, not more than twelve ever had colored sheriffs at any time, and they did not all hold office at the same time. Of those who were thus honored, the writer of these lines was personally acquainted with not less than ten. Mr. Evans was one of the few whom he did not then know personally. If Mr. Rhodes had desired to be fair and impartial, he would have taken all of them into consideration and would have drawn an average. But this would not have answered his purpose. It would have shown that in point of intelligence, capacity, and honesty the colored sheriffs would have favorably compared with the whites.

Take, for instance, the county of Adams-Natchez, my own home, where two colored men at different times held the office of sheriff. The first of the two was Wm. McCary, who was elected in 1873. He belonged to that small class known as free persons of color during the days of slavery. His father was the leading barber of Natchez for white business men and a private school teacher. He taught the children of those who were identified with his own class, of which there were quite a number, having privileges and advantages which were denied to the children of slaves. His own children, of course, were not neglected. Wm. McCary, therefore, had a good English education. He was also a property owner and a taxpayer. He was one of the two colored men who qualified as a surety on the bond of the writer of these lines when he was appointed a Justice of the Peace in 1869. Mr. McCary was held in high esteem by the people of the city of Natchez and the county of Adams, both white and colored. Prior to his election to the office of sheriff he had served as a member of the board of aldermen for the city of Natchez and also as treasurer of the county of Adams, and subsequently as postmaster of Natchez, the duties of all of which he discharged with credit to himself and satisfaction to the public. In 1875 he was succeeded as sheriff by another colored man, Robert H. Wood, who in all important particulars was about on a par with McCary. Wood had previously served as mayor of Natchez, to which position he was elected by popular vote in December, 1870. He was serving the people of Natchez as their postmaster when he was elected to the office of sheriff.

These men not only gave satisfaction to the people whom they served, but they reflected credit upon themselves, their race, their party and the community that was so fortunate as to have the benefit of their services. What was true of these two men was also true in a large measure of Harney of Hinds, Scott of Issaquena, Sumner of Holmes, and several others. But, if Mr. Rhodes had desired to be impartial and preferred to select but one man as a typical representative of those who were elected to such positions by the votes of colored men, he would have selected B. K. Bruce, who was sheriff of Bolivar County when he was elected to the United States Senate. Mr. Bruce needs no introduction to intelligent and reading Americans. He developed into a national character. He reflected credit not only upon himself, his race and his party but his country as well. And yet he typified in a most remarkable degree the colored men who were elected to important and responsible positions chiefly by the votes of members of that race. But the reader of Rhodes's history will look in vain for anything that will give him accurate information along these lines. His history, therefore, is remarkable, not only for what it says, but for what it leaves unsaid. In fact, it is plain to the intelligent reader that he started out with preconceived notions as to what the facts were or should have been, and that he took particular pains to select such data and so to color the same as to make them harmonize with his opinions. He thus passed over in silence all facts which could not be so distorted as to make them thus harmonize. He could find nothing that was creditable or meritorious in the career of any colored member of either house of Congress, notwithstanding the favorable impression made and the important and dignified service rendered by Revels and Bruce in the Senate and by Rainey, Rapier, Elliott, Smalls, Cain, Langston, Miller, Ohara, Cheatham, White and others in the House.[403]

But, to return to Mississippi, let us take up another error of Mr. Rhodes. Referring to the political and sanguinary revolution which took place in Mississippi in 1875, Mr. Rhodes makes use of these words: "Whilst regretting some of the means employed, all lovers of good government must rejoice at the redemption of Mississippi.... Since 1876 Mississippi has increased in population and in wealth; her bonded indebtedness and taxation are low."[404] It is difficult to conceive how an intelligent man, claiming to be an impartial recorder of historical events, could be induced to make such glaring statements as the above, when he ought to have known that just the opposite of what he affirms is true, except as to increase in population and in wealth. "All lovers of good government must rejoice at the _redemption_ of Mississippi." _Redemption_ from what? The reader is led to believe that the "_redemption_" is from bad to good government, from high to low taxes, from increased to decreased bonded indebtedness, from incompetent, inefficient and dishonest administration to one that was competent, efficient and honest.

Now let us see just what the facts were and are. In 1875 there was just one State officer to be elected, that of State treasurer, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of George H. Holland, who was elected on the ticket with Ames in 1873. The Democrats nominated Hon. Wm. L. Hemingway, of Carroll County, whose nomination was favorably received. He had the reputation of being a capable, an honest and upright man. In addition to this, he was identified with that wing of his party which was known to be progressive, liberal and fair. In the early days of Reconstruction, the Democratic party in the State was sharply divided into two factions. One, the major faction, adopted what they termed a policy of "masterly inactivity," which meant that the white Democrats should take no part in the organization of a State government under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, with a view of making the work of Reconstruction as odious, as objectionable and as unpopular as possible. The other faction believed it to be the duty of the white Democrats to take an active part in the formation of a State government, elect as many Democrats to the State Constitutional Convention of 1868 as possible with a view of framing a new constitution that would have very few if any objectionable clauses. Wm. L. Hemingway was one of that number, and as such he was elected to the convention from Carroll County. The nomination of Hemingway for State treasurer by the Democratic State Convention in 1875 was looked upon as a concession to that element of the party.

The Republicans did not fail to see that in order to carry the State they must nominate their strongest and best man, even if the election should be fair and honest, which they hoped would be the case, but which hope they had good reasons to apprehend would not be fully realized. Capt. George M. Buchanan, of Marshal County, was nominated. Buchanan had been a brave and gallant Confederate soldier. He had served as sheriff of Marshal County for a number of years. He was strong, able and popular. He was known to be the best fitted and best qualified man for the office of State treasurer. With a half-way decent election his triumph, even over so popular a man as Wm. L. Hemingway, was an assured fact. The Democrats, however, had decided that the time had come for the State to be "_redeemed_," peaceably and fairly if possible, violently and unfairly if necessary. With George M. Buchanan as the Republican candidate, it was necessary to employ means which Mr. Rhodes so much regretted, but which he justifies because, as he understands it, they were employed in the interest of good government.

Was that true? Let us see. Buchanan, of course, was declared defeated and Hemingway declared elected. Mississippi was thus "_redeemed_, for which all lovers of good government must rejoice," but Mr. Rhodes failed to record the fact that this man who was the representative of the _redemption_ of the State had been in office a comparatively brief period when the discovery was made that he was a defaulter to the amount of $315,612.19.[405] It would be a reflection upon Mr. Rhodes's intelligence to assume that he was ignorant of this important fact. Oh, no! he must have known about it, but to make any allusion to it would be out of harmony with the purposes he evidently had in view. It is safe to assume that, if the will of a majority of the legal voters of the State had not been violently suppressed in the interest of _good_ and _honest_ government, which would have resulted in the election of honest George M. Buchanan, while the State would not have been _redeemed_, it would have been saved from the loss of $315,612.19. The writer of these lines has never believed that Hemingway was the personal beneficiary of this money or any part thereof, but that he was the instrument in the hands of others. Still he was the official representative of the _redemption_ of the State for which "all lovers of good government must rejoice."

That there was a material increase in the population and in the wealth of the State will not be denied. These results would have followed, even if the State had never been _redeemed_. They were not due to _redemption_ but in spite of it. In fact, there was a marked increase in population and in wealth before as well as subsequent to the _redemption_. But when the author states that the bonded indebtedness and taxation are low, the impression necessarily made, and intended to be made upon the mind of the reader, is that after the _redemption_ took place and as a result thereof, the _rate_ of taxation was reduced, the volume of money paid into the State treasury annually for the support of the government was less than it had been before, and that there had been a material reduction in the bonded debt of the State, neither of which is true.[406] If Mr. Rhodes had been disposed to record the truth and nothing but the truth, which is presumed to be the aim of an impartial historian, he could have easily obtained the facts, because they are matters of record. To give the reader an idea of what the facts were and are, I will take, for purposes of comparison, one year prior and one subsequent to the _redemption_ of the State. In 1875, the year that the _redemption_ took place, the assessed value of taxable property was $119,313,834. The receipts from all sources that year amounted to $1,801,129.12. Disbursements for the same year, $1,430,192.83. In 1907 the assessed value of taxable property was reported to be $373,584,960. Receipts from all sources, same year, $3,391,127.15. Disbursements, same year, $3,730,343.29. The above figures speak for themselves. They are from the official records, the accuracy of which cannot be questioned.[407] The records show too that during the administration of Governor Ames, which was about half over when the _redemption_ took place, the rate of taxation had been reduced from seven mills to four mills and that a material reduction had been made in the bonded debt of the State and that after the _redemption_ took place the tax rate was increased from four mills to six mills and that by 1907 $732,890.74 had been added to the bonded debt of the State. And yet in the opinion of Mr. Rhodes, these are conditions for the deliverance from which the employment of regrettable means was necessary, at which, however, "all lovers of good government should rejoice," since their employment resulted in the _redemption_ of the State.

But another evidence of Mr. Rhodes's careless and reckless manner of stating alleged historical facts will be found in a paragraph on page 132 of his seventh volume. In speaking of Governor Ames's unsuccessful efforts to have troops sent to the State to assist in maintaining order and insuring a fair and peaceable election, he says: "A number of the white Republicans of Mississippi who had quarrelled or differed with Ames, among whom were both the United States senators, used their influence against the sending of federal troops to Mississippi and none were sent." The two United States Senators at that time were J.L. Alcorn and B.K. Bruce. Bruce was a strong friend and loyal supporter of Ames and did all in his power to have Ames's request granted. This statement is based upon my own knowledge. Senator Alcorn was one of the few white Republicans who had quarrelled with Ames. In fact, he ran as an Independent for governor against Ames in 1873. But he was a Republican United States Senator and as such he had no sympathy with the Democratic party. My relations with both senators were cordial. If Alcorn had used his influence to prevent having federal troops sent to the State, I am sure I would have known it. If he raised his voice or used his pen for such purpose, that fact was never brought to my notice and I am satisfied it was never done. My own opinion is that he remained reticent and refused to take sides. The true reason why troops were not sent in compliance with the request of Governor Ames was that, although the President once directed that the requisition be complied with, he later rescinded the order when informed by Republicans from Ohio that such interference would cause the loss of Ohio to the Republicans at the October election and would not save Mississippi.[408]

Referring to the Reconstruction policy, Mr. Rhodes says: "Stevens' Reconstruction Acts, ostensibly in the interest of freedom, were an attack on civilization.[409] In my judgment Sumner did not show wise constructive statesmanship in forcing unqualified Negro Suffrage on the South."[410] The truth is that Stevens and Sumner were wiser than their day and generation. They were not favorable to an immediate restoration of the States lately in rebellion upon any conditions. They knew that after the cessation of hostilities, the flower of the Confederate Army, an army which it took the entire North with all of its numbers, immense wealth and almost limitless resources four years to conquer, would be at the South and that upon the completion of Reconstruction and the withdrawal of the federal troops, that army could be utilized to bring about practically the same conditions that existed before the war. They, therefore, opposed immediate restoration. This is what Mr. Rhodes characterizes as an attack on civilization. To what civilization does he refer? He surely could not have had in mind the civilization which believed in the divine right of slavery and which recognized and sanctioned the right of one man to hold another as his property; and yet this was the only civilization upon which the rebuilding of the rebellious governments was an attack. But for the adoption of the Congressional plan of Reconstruction and the subsequent legislation of the nation along the same line, the abolition of slavery through the ratification of the 13th Amendment would have been in name only, a legal and constitutional myth. This is the civilization, however, an attack upon which Mr. Rhodes so deeply deplores. It is fortunate for the country that a majority of Mr. Rhodes's fellow citizens did not and do not agree with him along these lines.

Since Stevens and Sumner could not secure the adoption of the plan advocated by them, they proceeded to secure the adoption of the best one that it was possible to obtain under conditions as they then existed. Hence they insisted, successfully, as was then believed, that the legislation, including the 14th Amendment, should be so framed as not only to create national citizenship, as distinguished from State citizenship, but that it should be made the duty of the Federal Government to protect its own citizens, when necessary, against domestic violence, to protect its citizens at home as well as when they are abroad. The closing clause of the 14th Amendment, therefore, declares that Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of the amendment by appropriate legislation.

But Mr. Rhodes says the Congressional plan of Reconstruction was a failure. The defeat of the Republican party at the North, especially in 1874, he believes "was due to the failure of the Southern policy of the Republican party." In speaking of the action of President Hayes, he says: "Indeed it was the final admission of the Republican party that their policy of forcing Negro suffrage upon the South was a failure." Is it true that Reconstruction was a failure? That depends upon the view one takes of it. Admitting that some of the things expected of it by many of its friends and supporters were not fully realized, its failure even to that extent was, in a large measure, one of the _results_ but not one of the contributory _causes_ of the Democratic national victory of 1874. On the contrary, that policy was a grand and brilliant success.

In the first place, when the split between Congress and President Johnson took place, there was soon developed the fact that the enfranchisement of the blacks was the only plan which could be adopted and by which the one advocated by the President could be defeated. It had been seen and frankly admitted that the war for the preservation of the Union could not have been brought to a successful conclusion without putting the musket in the hands of the loyal blacks. The fact was now made plain that the fruits of the victory that had been won on the battlefield could not be preserved without putting the ballot in their hands. Hence, it was done.

Was this a mistake? Mr. Rhodes says it was; but the results prove that it was not. But for the enfranchisement of the blacks at the South at the time and in the way it was done the 14th and subsequently the 15th Amendment to the Federal Constitution never could have been ratified. The ratification of these two measures alone vindicated the wisdom of that legislation. The 14th Amendment, among other things, made the colored people American citizens. It was, in effect, a recall of the famous Dred Scott decision. The 15th Amendment gave the colored American access to the ballot box, in every State in the Union. The fundamental principles that were carried into effect through the Reconstruction acts of Congress were embodied in these two amendments. After the ratification of these measures, what had previously been local to the South became national. No State north, south, east or west can now legally and constitutionally make or enforce any law making race or color the basis of discrimination in the exercise and enjoyment of civil and public rights and privileges, nor can it make race or color the basis of discrimination in prescribing the qualification of electors. By the ratification of those amendments the right of an American citizen to the exercise and enjoyment of civil and political rights and the right to vote ceased to be local and became national. But it is claimed by some that because the 15th Amendment has been successfully evaded in certain States, it is, for that reason, a failure. I will state here in passing, however, that there has never been made nor can be made any law or constitution that can not at certain times and in some places be successfully evaded. But this does not necessarily prove that the law or constitution in question was a mistake and should, for that reason, be repealed. To this extent and for the reasons and purposes above stated, the wisdom of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress has been more than vindicated.

The failure of the Reconstruction legislation was not due so much to the change of sentiment in the North as to an unwise interpretation of these laws. This started with two unfortunate decisions rendered by the United States Supreme Court, the result of two unwise appointments to seats on the bench made by President Grant. The Judges referred to are Waite of Ohio, and Bradley of New Jersey. Both were supposed to be Republicans and believed to be in accord with the other leaders and constitutional lawyers in the Republican party in their construction of the War Amendments to the Federal Constitution. But they proved to be strong States' Rights men and, therefore, strict constructionists. Those two, with the other States' Rights men already on the bench, constituted a majority of that tribunal. The result was that the court declared unconstitutional and void, not only the national civil rights act, but also the principal sections of the different enforcement acts which provided for the protection of individual citizens by the Federal Government against domestic violence. National citizenship had been created by the 14th Amendment and the Federal Government had been clothed with power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Legislation for that purpose had been placed upon the statute books and they were being enforced whenever and wherever necessary, as in the case of the lawless and criminal organization called the Ku Klux Klan. But the Supreme Court, very much to the surprise of every one, stepped in and tied the hands of the national administration and prevented any further prosecutions for violence upon the person of a citizen of the United States, if committed within the limits of any one of the States of the Union. In other words, if the State in which a citizen of the United States may reside can not, does not or will not protect him in the exercise and enjoyment of his personal, civil and political rights, he is without a remedy. The result is that the Federal Government is placed in the awkward and anomalous position of exacting support and allegiance from its citizens, to whom it can not in return afford protection, unless they should be outside the boundaries of their own country. By those unfortunate and fatal decisions the vicious and mischievous doctrine of States' Rights, called by some State sovereignty, by others local self government, which was believed to have perished upon the battlefields of the country, was given new life, strength and audacity, and fostered by the preaching of the fear of "Negro domination." The decision declaring the Civil Rights Law unconstitutional was rendered by Mr. Justice Bradley, and nearly all of those by which the principal sections of the different enforcement laws were nullified, were rendered by Chief Justice Waite.

If in every southern State today no attempt were made to violate or evade the 15th Amendment and colored men were allowed free and unrestricted access to the ballot boxes and their votes were fairly and honestly counted, there would be no more danger of "Negro domination" in any one of these States than there is of female domination in States where women have the right to vote. All that colored men have ever insisted upon, was not to dominate but to participate, not to rule but to have a voice in the selection of those who are to rule. In view of their numerical strength the probabilities are that more of them would be officially recognized than in other sections of the country, but never out of proportion to their fitness and capacity, unless there should be a repetition of conditions that existed in the early days of Reconstruction, which is improbable. The dominant element in the Democratic party in that section at that time adopted, as stated above, the policy of "masterly inactivity" which was intended to prevent white men, through intimidation, from taking any part in the organization and reconstruction of the State governments, with a view of making the governments thus organized as odious and as objectionable as possible, in other words, to make them as far as possible "Negro governments." This policy proved to be somewhat effective in many localities. The result was the colored men found much difficulty in finding desirable white men outside of the Democratic party for the different local positions to be filled. This made it necessary in some instances for colored men to be selected to fill certain positions for which white men would have been chosen. But under the present order of things, a repetition of any thing of this sort would be wholly out of the question.

I can not close this article without giving expression to the hope that a fair, just and impartial historian will, some day, write a history covering the Reconstruction period, in which an accurate account based upon actual facts of what took place at that time will be given, instead of a compilation and condensation of untrue, unreliable and grossly exaggerated statements taken from political campaign literature.

JOHN R. LYNCH,
Author of "The Facts of Reconstruction."

4352 FORRESTVILLE AVENUE,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

FOOTNOTES:

[402] Lynch, "The Facts of Reconstruction," Chapter XI.

[403] The speech of R. B. Elliott in reply to A. H. Stephens in the debate on the Civil Rights Bill was admitted to be one of the most eloquent and scholarly speeches ever delivered in Congress. But Mr. Rhodes's preconceived opinions and prejudices were so firmly fixed that he was incapable of detecting anything in the acts or utterances of any colored member of either branch of Congress that deserved to be commended or favorably noticed.

[404] Rhodes, "History of United States," VII, 141.

[405] See Chapter 16 of Lynch, "The Facts of Reconstruction."

[406] See Chapter 8 of Lynch, "The Facts of Reconstruction."

[407] _Ibid._

[408] Lynch, "Facts of Reconstruction," pp. 150-151.

[409] Rhodes, "History of the United States," VI, 35.

[410] Rhodes, "History of the United States," VI, 40.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF HAITI AND LIBERIA AS INDEPENDENT REPUBLICS

The doctrine of recognition as a principle of International law appeared in definite form at the close of the American Revolution. New states had arisen and successful revolutions had given birth to new governments.[411] In Washington's Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, the French Republic was recognized and the neutral position of America was announced.[412] These principles, developed later by Adams and Jefferson through application to the South American colonies which had declared their independence of Spain, marked the beginning of the well-defined international principle of recognition.[413]

Between 1810 and 1825, the Spanish colonies of Mexico, New Granada (Columbia), Venezuela, Peru, Buenos Ayres, Chile, Ecuador and Upper Peru (Bolivia) had revolted and rejected Spanish dominion.[414] In 1824, England recognized the independence of Buenos Ayres, Mexico and Columbia, and gave no heed to the assertion that this "tended to encourage the revolutionary spirit which it had been found so difficult to restrain in Europe."[415]

But before the Spanish colonies had gained their independence, and the spirit of democracy had begun to diffuse its light, movements were on foot to secure the recognition of Haiti. After its discovery by Columbus in 1492, Haitian soil was drenched with the blood of the Spaniard and the native. Civil wars were begun and bloody scenes were enacted.[416] In 1533, peace came between the natives and the Spaniards. Soon thereafter, other Europeans began to arrive. The French and the English were attracted by the stories of riches and their chances for gain. The bloody struggles between these nations and the natives fill many pages of Haitian history.[417] The inhabitants took now the one side, now the other.

Led by Toussaint L'Ouverture, the cause of the French was championed. Finding the French yoke as heavy as the Spanish yoke, Toussaint struck for absolute liberty.[418] He was not, in a real sense, the liberator of the Haitians, as commonly supposed, but he was the precursor of their liberty.[419] His deportation aroused them to struggle with new vigor. Under Dessalines, one of the generals in the army of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the rebellion grew more successful, and on January 1, 1804, the army swore to abjure their allegiance to France forever, and thereupon declared the independence of Haiti.[420] Dessalines was chosen Governor-General and upon abolishing the name "Santo Domingo," the aboriginal name "Haiti" was reestablished.

The history of Haiti after 1804 is concerned with internal dissensions, and contentions with foreign powers. Haiti was not immediately recognized nor was she welcomed into the family of nations. Retaliatory measures were taken by her government to compel the powers to see the advantage in this recognition. Christophe, a contender for power with Pétion, one of the founders of the republic, issued in 1816 the proclamation that no negotiation would be entered upon with France unless the independence of the kingdom of Haiti,[421] political as well as commercial, be previously recognized.[422]

In 1823, the independence of Mexico, Columbia, and others was recognized by Great Britain, but Haiti after nineteen years of independence was not given this consideration.[423] As a result the British trade privileges were abolished and the import tax of 12 per cent. was levied on the products of all nations.[424]

Early indications of American commercial relations with Haiti and of an unsatisfactory condition may be discerned in the following resolutions, the first of which was submitted in the Senate, January 11, 1819:

"_Resolved:_ that the President of the United States be requested
to communicate to the Senate any information in his possession
and which, in his opinion, the public interest may permit to
disclose, relating to the seizure and detention of the property
of American citizens by the government of Haiti, and the state of
any negotiations to procure restitution."[425]

On December 31, 1822, the following resolution was submitted in the House:

"_Resolved:_ that the committee on commerce be instructed to
inquire into the present state of the trade and intercourse
between the United States and the Island of Haiti, and report
what measures would be necessary to improve the commerce between
the two countries."[426]

As a matter of fact, the trade with Haiti was very important during this period. By the report of the Register's Office, 1825, Haiti ranked twenty-ninth in the list of countries trading with the United States.[427]

The actual presentation of the question to the country as a whole grew out of an invitation to attend the Panama Congress. In 1825, General Bolivar, leader of the South American revolutionists, invited the states north and south of the Isthmus to send delegates to a congress which would assemble at Panama. Formal invitations to attend the congress were received from Mexico, Guatemala and Columbia and others. The following suggestions were made as to questions to be considered: the interference of European powers in America, the recognition of Haiti, the slave trade and the formation of an American league.[428] That the recognition of Haiti was one of the objects of consideration is so stated among the lists of subjects in the _Official Gazette_ of Columbia. The congress was to determine on what footing should be placed the political and commercial relations of those portions of our hemisphere, which had obtained their independence, but whose independence had not been recognized by any American or European power, as was for many years the case with Haiti.[429] Other evidence is found in a letter of the Columbian minister, Salazar: "On what basis the relations of Haiti, and of other parts of our Hemisphere that shall hereafter be in like circumstances, are to be placed," said he, "is a question simple at first view, but attended with serious difficulties when closely examined. These arise from the different manner of regarding Africans, and from their different rights in Haiti, the United States and in other American states. This question will be determined at the Isthmus, and if possible, an uniform rule of conduct adopted in regard to it, or those modifications that may be demanded by circumstances."[430]

A special message was sent to Congress by President Adams on December 26, naming the delegates to this congress, and asking for an appropriation for expenses. Both Clay, then Secretary of State, and President Adams wished to extend the commercial power of the United States over the Americas, and they welcomed this opportunity. They disclaimed any desire to enter any league, but left poorly defined the objects which would be considered.[431]

The southern point of view, as expressed in the debates on this question, was that disaster awaited the Southern States, if the United States should send delegates to a congress in which Haitian representatives would sit, and which would consider the separation of Cuba and Porto Rico from Spain and the cessation of slavery. This viewpoint was expressed by Benton of Missouri, saying: "We buy coffee from her, and pay for it; but we interchange no consuls or ministers. We receive no mulatto consuls or black ambassadors. And why? Because the peace of eleven states in this Union will not permit the fruits of a successful Negro insurrection to be exhibited among them.... Who are to advise and sit in judgment upon it? Five nations who have already put the black man upon an equality with the white, not only in their constitutions but in real life; five nations who have at this moment (at least some of them) black generals in their armies and mulatto Senators in their Congresses."[432]

The same attitude was expressed by Hayne of South Carolina. "With nothing connected with slavery," said he, "can we consent to treat with other nations, and least of all, ought we to touch the question of the independence of Haiti, in conjunction with revolutionary governments.... You find men of color at the head of their armies, in their legislative halls, and in their executive departments. They are looking to Hayti, even now, with feelings of the strongest fraternity and show, by the very documents before us, that they acknowledge her to be independent."[433] So far as the mission itself was concerned, these arguments were farfetched and served rather to delay the time of departure than to hinder it. The Senate confirmed the nomination and the House voted the expenses. The delegates arrived after the close of the sessions of the congress. Another session was to be held at Tacubaya, but because of dissensions this congress did not assemble. Therefore, the Panama Congress served only to excite debate on the slavery issue and the recognition question, and this last became a rallying cry for the opponents of the administration.

During the intervening years between 1825 and 1860, many memorials, petitions and recommendations were made to Congress respecting the recognition of Haiti. In June, 1838, a petition was received by the Senate from "certain citizens of the United States praying that a diplomatic representative be sent and commercial regulations be entered into with the Republic."[434] This, as others, was laid on the table. While this session continued, petitions were repeatedly presented. John Quincy Adams was the champion of this cause, as of that against the Gag Resolutions, and, again and again, it was through him that the memorials were presented.

Objections were frequently made to the presentation of these memorials. On December 19, Legaré of South Carolina said: "As sure as you live, Sir, if this course is permitted to go on, the sun of this Union will go down--it will go down in blood and go down to rise no more. I will vote unhesitatingly against nefarious designs like these. They are treason."[435] In 1839, while the House was considering an outfit for a chargé d'affaires to Holland, Slade of Vermont began a speech in favor of appointing a diplomatic agent to Haiti. He spoke until the House refused to hear the continuation of his remarks.[436] A resolution was offered later to appoint a commercial agent to Haiti, but it was ruled out of order.[437] In the same year, the Committee on Foreign Affairs asked to be discharged from the "further consideration of sundry memorials asking for the opening of international relations with Haiti."[438] In spite of this request, the next year, 1840, petitions urging the recognition were continued.[439] That Garrison was active in this agitation of the abolition period is shown by the statement of Wise, of Virginia: "it is but part and parcel of the English scheme set on foot by Garrison, and to bring abolition as near as possible...."[440]

In 1844, the Committee on Foreign Affairs made a report on the subject of commercial intercourse with the republic of Haiti. Ten thousand copies were ordered to be printed.[441] As a result of this report, and the agitation of years back, a commission was appointed to Haiti in 1844 and again in 1851.[442] In the latter year, an invitation was made to the United States Government to join France and England in an offensive interference in Haiti.[443] The correspondence and the reports of one of the American Commissioners, Robert Walsh, was made public in 1852, and they were widely discussed.[444] The reports were unjust and unfair estimations even of the Haitian commercial situation. A reliable estimate of the trade of Haiti with the United States, at this time, places the trade as equal to the total trade of Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, the Cisalpine Republics and Peru with the United States. Mexico, with more than sixteen times as large a population as Haiti, exported from the United States in 1851, $330,000 less than Haiti and used for the purpose 26,000 tons less of shipping.[445] And yet these countries were recognized as independent republics, while Haiti was denied that right.

European countries were not as slow as the United States in granting recognition to Haiti. England formally acknowledged the Republic in 1825, and sent a Consul-General.[446] An imperfect recognition was granted by Charles X of France, by sending Baron Mackau as his representative.[447] Its independence was recognized fully in 1838, after thirty-four years of independence. Two treaties were negotiated, one of them political, by which the independence of the republic was recognized; the other financial, by which the claims of the French colonists were reduced to sixty million francs.[448] This debt made Haiti almost a dependency of France for over sixty years.[39] Before 1860, all important countries had representatives in Haiti. Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Hanover and Austria were all duly chronicled in the Almanach de Gotha.[449] In the language of Frederick Douglass: "After Haiti had shaken off the fetters of bondage, and long after her freedom and independence had been recognized by all other civilized nations, we continued to refuse to acknowledge the fact and treated her as outside the sisterhood of nations."

By act of Congress in 1819, the colony of Liberia was established. During the years following, groups of colonists left America for this shore.[450] The decade after 1832 was marked by the action of the independent State colonization societies. In 1847, the people of Liberia undertook self-government, which was adopted by popular vote. A later convention drew up a declaration of independence, and a new constitution modeled on that of the United States was adopted, July 26, 1847. In September, it was ratified by the people, and President Roberts took office, January 3, 1848.[451]

President Roberts set out on a voyage to the foreign countries with the intention of seeking favor for his country. In many countries, he was welcomed and his efforts were successful. In England, for example, not only was recognition secured, but also an armed vessel of small tonnage and a few guns were given him.[452] In the United States, not even the formal recognition of Liberia was obtained. This was due, in some measure, to the slavery question and the contention which was always aroused when any subject even remotely related thereto was presented.[453]

When Liberia declared its independence in 1848, the second Negro republic entered its demand for the recognition of its sovereignty by the United States. Henry Clay, one of the early officers of the American Colonization Society, wrote in a letter dated Ashland, October 18, 1851: "I have thought for years that the independence of Liberia ought to be recognized by our government, and I have frequently urged it upon persons connected with the administration and I shall continue to do so if I have suitable opportunity."

England recognized the independence of Liberia in 1848 and France in 1852.[454] In 1855 treaties were formed with the Hanseatic Republics, Lubeck, Bremen and Hamburg, with Belgium in 1858, with Denmark in 1861, with Italy and the Netherlands in 1862, with Holland, Sweden, Norway and Haiti in 1864, with Portugal and Denmark in 1865 and Austria in 1867.[455] For a period of years the United States had maintained a commercial agent at Monrovia and at Gaboon.[456] It was evident to those acquainted with the commercial situation that recognition was desirable, for both of these Republics.[457]

In 1859, the leading northern newspapers carried advertisements from the Haitian government, offering homes with land and free passage to those unable to provide the same. A reply was published in the _Tribune_ addressed especially to the free people of color of Missouri and the North. A significant clause in this reply said: "Remember that when you pass beyond the limits of the United States, the government and laws of this country cease to protect you."[458] A circular was sent out in 1860, addressed to the "Blacks, Men of color, and Indians in the United States and British North American Provinces," and after calling attention to the prosperous condition of the country, added "that our relations with the powers represented in Haiti are on a footing of perfect harmony."[459]

The triumph of the Republican party in 1860 foreshadowed the exclusion of slavery from the territories, and the ultimate ruin of the institution. Six weeks after Lincoln's election, South Carolina had adopted the Ordinance of Secession, and the Gulf States soon followed. There were only four slave-holding States with representatives in Congress, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. At the opening of the 37th Congress, 1861, the President's message contained the following: "If any good reason exists why we should persevere longer in withholding our recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Haiti and Liberia, I am unable to discern it. Unwilling, however, to inaugurate a novel policy in regard to them without the approbation of Congress, I submit to your consideration the expediency of an appropriation for maintaining a Chargé d'Affaires near each of these states. It does not admit of doubt that important commercial advantages might be secured by favorable treaties with them."[460] Commenting on Lincoln's message, Garrison terms it "feeble and rambling" and he "could find nothing in it to praise except the recommendation that Congress should recognize the independence and sovereignty of Haiti and Liberia."[461]

The 45th annual report, January 21, 1862, of the American Colonization Society contained a section calling attention to the message.[462] The board of managers of the Pennsylvania Colonization Society took note of the same, May, 1862.[463] Newspapers and magazines took up the agitation. The _Philadelphia North American_ said: "It is high time that Congress should recognize Liberia as an independent, self-sustaining government. Such a measure would be perfectly comformable to the principles, policy and direct interests of our country."[464]

On February 4, 1862, Charles Sumner from the Committee on Foreign Relations, introduced a bill "authorizing the President to appoint Diplomatic Representatives to the Republics of Haiti and Liberia respectively. Each Representative so appointed is to be accredited as Commissioner and Consul-General and is to receive, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the compensation of commissioners provided for by Act of Congress, approved August 18, 1856; but the compensation of the Representative at Liberia is not to exceed $4,000."[465] With the introduction of the bill, Sumner spoke at some length, favoring the passage of the bill.[466] Following the speech of Sumner, the opposition arose. Davis, of Kentucky, said: "If after such a measure should take effect, the Republic of Haiti and the Republic of Liberia were to send their Ministers Plenipotentiary or their Chargé d'Affaires to our government, they would have to be received by the President and by all the functionaries of the government upon the same terms of equality with similar representatives from other powers. If a full-blooded Negro were sent in that capacity from either of the two countries, by the laws of nations he could demand that he be received precisely on the same terms of equality with the white representative from the powers on the earth composed of white people."[467] This sentiment of the opposition, however, was expressed in harsher terms in some instances. Through Saulsbury, of Maryland, this sentiment again was: "How fine it will look, after emancipating the slaves in this District, to welcome here at the White House an African, full-blooded, all gilded and belaced, dressed in court style, with wig and sword and tights and shoe-buckles and ribbons and spangles and many other adornments which African vanity will suggest;" and "If this bill should pass the Houses of Congress and become a law, I predict that in twelve months, some Negro will walk upon the floor of the Senate and carry his family into that which is apart for foreign Ministers. If that is agreeable to the tastes and feelings of the people of this country, it is not to mine...."[468]

To these attacks, Sumner replied: "I content myself with a single remark. I have more than once had the opportunity of meeting citizens of those republics and I say nothing more than truth when I add that I have found them so refined, and so full of self-respect that I am led to believe no one of them charged with a mission from his government will seek any society where he will not be entirely welcome."[469] A letter from the Commercial Agent at Port au Prince was read, urging immediate recognition in order to counteract "the schemes of foreign powers"; adding further that "the Haitians believed that when the present administration came into power in the United States, our former coldness and neglect would cease; and they feel and do not hesitate to express a bitter disappointment that nothing has yet been done."[470] The bill was passed by the Senate, by a vote of 32 yeas to 7 nays. In the House, it was championed by Gooch of Massachusetts and passed by a vote of 86 yeas to 37 nays, and with the President's signature became a law. In November, 1864, a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation was signed between the United States and Haiti.[471] A similar treaty was signed with Liberia.[472]

Both of the Republics have felt deeply indebted to Charles Sumner for the passage of this bill. The Liberian Commissioners, Alexander Crummell, Edward Blyden, and J. D. Johnson, expressed thanks for his discretion in securing its passage.[473] The republic of Haiti as late as 1871 manifested its gratitude for his continued interest in its welfare by presenting him with a medal and by an order that his portrait be placed in its capitol.[474] The A. M. E. Church, representing thousands of Negroes in the United States, expressed the sentiment of this people in a resolution adopted in August, 1862, to the effect "that, in the noble act of the United States Senate in passing a law recognizing the independence of Haiti and Liberia, we see the hand of God in a movement which we regard as ominous of good for the race."[475]

Thus after Haiti had been an independent power for sixty years and Liberia for fifteen years, the government of the United States granted recognition to them as independent republics, on the eve of the death of the slave system. Under the average circumstances, prompt recognition may have come as the result of the efforts of the nations themselves, as in the case of the republic of Texas.[476] But because of the unusual circumstance which the adoption of recognition for Negro republics would produce--holding some as slaves and recognizing others as equals--these republics were forced to ally themselves with the opponents of slavery and to encourage the presentation of their case through the champions of anti-slavery in the legislative halls. Without regard to their more recent internal politics and modern difficulties, the recognition of these republics as independent powers forms one of the great landmarks in the Negro's progress toward democracy, and justice.

CHARLES H. WESLEY

FOOTNOTES:

[411] Paxson, "Independence of South American Republics," pp. 17-18.

[412] Foster, "A Century of American Diplomacy," p. 154.

[413] Reddaway, "The Monroe Doctrine," p. 15.

[414] Robinson and Beard, "The Development of Modern Europe," Vol. 2, p. 22.

[415] _Ibid._, p. 27.

[416] Leger, "Haiti, Her History and Distractors," p. 22.

[417] Madiou (fils) describes the mutual cruelties of the French and natives. "l'Histoire d'Haiti."

[418] Leger, "Haiti," p. 125.

[419] In this struggle 50,000 Frenchmen were lost. Gastonnet des Fosses. "La Perte d'une Colonie," p. 34.

[420] Bird, "The Black Man or Haytian Independence (1869)," p. 60.

[421] Christophe assumed the title of king of Haiti in 1811.

[422] Leger, "Haiti," p. 168.

[423] During the presidency of Boyer (1818-1848) several invitations were sent to the free colored people of the United States to migrate to Haiti. Agents were sent and plans to cooperate with colonization groups in America were encouraged. The constitution of 1843 abolished the presidency for life, which was held by Boyer, and instituted a service for four years. The Republic is still governed by the stipulations of this constitution. Leger, p. 179.

[424] Seger, Haiti, p. 179.

America was subjected to these taxes as shown by: "While the citizens of France are scarcely affected in their importations to Haiti, the Americans here import and our merchants at home export scarcely any article that is free."--"Commercial Relations," Vol. 1, p. 560.

[425] Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2d Session, p. 113. This resolution was agreed to and the Committee was appointed.

[426] Annals of Congress, 17th Congress, 2d Session, p. 477. Agreed to without debate.

[427] Report of Register, Treasury Department, _Gale and Seaton's Register of Debates_, appendix, 18th Congress, 2d Session.

[428] Bassett, "History of United States," p. 383.

[429] _Official Gazette_ of Columbia, February, 1826. Quoted by Hayne, 19th Cong., 1st Session, _Gale and Seaton's Register_, p. 156.

[430] _Gale and Seaton's Register_, 19th Cong., 1st Session, p. 329. General Bolivar, himself, was kindly disposed to Haiti, as disclosed by the correspondence which passed between President Pétion and the General, just previous to the revolution in Venezuela. 4,000 rifles, provisions and ammunition were given by Haiti to the expedition.--"Expedition de Bolivar par le Senateur Marion aine," pp. 41-43, 1849.

[431] Cf. "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," Richardson, 1789-1897, Vol. 2, p. 320.

[432] _Gale and Seaton's Register_, 1825-1826, p. 330.

[433] _Gale and Seaton's Register_, 1825-1826, p. 166.

[434] _Congressional Globe_, 25th Congress, 2d Session, p. 457.

[435] _National Intelligencer_, December 19, 21, 1838.

[436] _Congressional Globe_, 25th Congress, 3d Session, p. 219.

[437] _Ibid._, p. 220.

[438] _Ibid._, p. 241, March 4, 1839.

[439] _Ibid._, 26th Congress, 1st Session, p. 164.

[440] Garrison and Garrison, "Life of Garrison," Vol. 2, p. 248. _Liberator_, 9:3.

[441] _Congressional Globe_, 28th Congress, 1st Session, p. 504.

[442] Clark, "United States Intervention in Hayti (1852)," p. 4.

[443] _Ibid._, p. 21. In 1844, San Domingo seceded and became the Dominican Republic. Frequent quarrels ensued between the two parts of the Island. Therefore the reason for this suggestion for interference. Cf. "San Domingo and the United States," John Bassett Moore, _Review of Reviews_, March, 1905, p. 298.

[444] Clark, p. 30. _Congress. Globe_, 32d Cong., 1st Session, p. 1769.

[445] Clark, p. 28.

[446] Sir Spencer St. John, "Hayti or The Black Republic," p. 86.

[447] _Ibid._, p. 380.

[448] Leger, "Recueil des traités et Conventions de la Republique d'Haiti," 23.

[449] _Congress. Globe_, 37th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1775. Speeches of Chas. Sumner, published variously, Washington, April 23, 1862, p. 6. Cf. "Contre la Reconnoissance de la Republique Haitienne (1825)" par M. Coustelin. La Norman père Librairie, Paris.

[450] Cf. Kennedy's "Colonization Report."

[451] McPherson, "History of Liberia," Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, X, p. 34.

[452] _Ibid._, p. 39.

[453] _Ibid._, p. 38. "But the delicacy with which the dissension on the slavery question made it necessary to handle every subject remotely bearing on that bone of contention, prevented him (Roberts) from obtaining even the formal recognition of Liberia."

[454] _Congress. Globe_, 37th Cong., 2d Session, p. 2500.

[455] "Treaties and Conventions concluded between the Republic of Liberia and Foreign Powers, 1848-1892," pp. 9, 17, 23, 30, published by the Department of State, Monrovia, Liberia.

[456] _Congress. Globe_, 37th Cong., 2d Session, p. 2501.