Chapter VIII: General Observations (1)

The curse of Negro slavery affected the whole English speaking world; and that part of the world where it was commercially profitable resisted its abolition. The British part of this world does not need to assert any higher sense of justice and right than had those who lived in the Northern States; and it may well be that had Negro slave service been as profitable in Canada as in the Cotton States, the heinousness of the sin might not have been more manifest here than there. Nevertheless we must not too much minimize the real merit of those who sought the destruction of slavery. Slaves did not pay so well in Canada as in Georgia, but they _paid_.

It is interesting to note the various ways in which slavery was met and finally destroyed. In Upper Canada, the existing slaves, 1793, remained slaves but all those born thereafter were free, subject to certain conditions of service. There was a statutory recognition of the existing status and provision for its destruction in the afterborn. This continued slavery though it much mitigated its severity and secured its downfall in time. But there were slaves in Upper Canada when the Imperial Act of 1833 came in force. The Act of 1793 was admittedly but a compromise measure; and beneficial as it was it was a paltering with sin.

In Lower Canada, there was no legislation, and slavery was never formally abolished until the Imperial Act of 1833; but the courts decided in effect if not in form that a master had no rights over his slave, and that is tantamount to saying that where there is no master there is no slave. The reasoning in these cases as in the Somerset case may not recommend itself to the lawyer but the effect is undoubtedly, "Slaves cannot live in Lower Canada."

In Nova Scotia, there was no decision that slavery did not exist. Indeed the course of procedure presupposed that it did exist, but the courts were astute to find means of making it all but impossible for the alleged master to succeed; and slavery disappeared accordingly.

In New Brunswick the decision by a divided court was in favor of the master; but juries were of the same calibre and sentiments in New Brunswick as in Nova Scotia and the same results were to be anticipated, if Nova Scotian means were used; and the slave owners gave way.

In the old land, judicial decision destroyed slavery on the British domain; but conscience and sense of justice and right impelled its destruction elsewhere by statute; and the same sense of justice and right impelled the Parliament of Great Britain to recompense the owners for their property thus destroyed. If there be any more altruistic act of any people in any age of the world's history I have failed to hear or read of it.

In the United States, slavery was abolished as a war measure. Lincoln hating slavery as he did would never have abolished it, had he not considered it a useful war measure. No compensation was paid, of course.[1] Everywhere slavery was doomed and in one way or another it has met a deserved fate.

WILLIAM RENWICK RIDDELL

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO,
OSGOOD HALL, TORONTO,
February 5, 1920

FOOTNOTES:

[1] I had with the late Hon. Warwick Hough of St. Louis, Missouri, who had been an officer in the Southern Army, several conversations on the subject of slavery. He gave it as his firm conviction that, had the South succeeded in the Civil War, it would shortly have itself abolished slavery and sought readmission to the Union. His proposition was that the power and influence of the planter class was waning, while the manufacturers, merchants and the like were increasing in number and influence and they would have for their own protection abolished slavery. I have not met a Northerner or a Canadian who agreed with this view; but a few Southerners have expressed to me their general concurrence with my friend's proposition.

BOOK REVIEWS

_Africa and the Discovery of America._ Volume I. By LEO WIENER,
Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Harvard
University. Innes & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa., 1920. Pp. i-xix,
1-290.

The present volume is the first of a series in which Professor Wiener will show that Arabicised Negroes, chiefly Mandingoes, brought to America as slaves, profoundly influenced the culture of the Indians, and were an important, if not always direct factor in establishing the _modus vivendi_ between the Indians and the Europeans, which made practicable the colonization of the New World.

The book is packed with valuable data, newly discovered, and brought together for the first time. It should be read slowly, and read through at least twice before judgment is passed on it. With the first reading comes a shock. One learns that the _Journal of the First Voyage_, and the _First Letter of Columbus_ are literary frauds, though containing material which came from Columbus's own pen, and that tobacco, manioc, yams, sweet potatoes and peanuts are not gifts of the Indian to the European. Yet with a more intimate study of the subject matter, the conviction increases that the author has built upon the bed-rock of fact, and that his position is unassailable.

It is impossible, within the limits of a review, to do more than to emphasise the most important of his discoveries. In his studies of the _First Letter_, and of the _Journals_ giving account of the first and the second voyages of Columbus, Professor Wiener seeks to determine how much testimony they give pertaining to Indian names and things, after the elimination of all that is not Indian. The non-Indian elements are of two sorts; the names of the Islands, and the words for "gold," etc. Columbus, dominated by the fixed idea, that, sailing westward, he would find a short cut to India, China and Japan, began with the first sight of land, to be engrossed with the task of identifying each newly discovered country with some island or district of the Far East, named on his maps. He was an ignorant man, though he knew Ptolemy and Marco Polo by heart, credulous, uncritical, not consciously dishonest, but unready to correct false impressions caused by his ignorance and gullibility. His notes, as may be seen from a reproduction of a page of his manuscripts (facing p. 38), were in an execrable hand. The forger of the _Journal of the First Voyage_ was no puzzle expert, and made mistakes in deciphering scrawls. Thus, for example, the note _Giaua min._, _i.e._, Java minor, was read _Guanahin_, the same destined to masquerade as _Guanahani_, the Indian name of the first island sighted on October 12, 1492.

Perhaps the best specimen of such ghost-words in the _Journal_ is the name _Carib_. This is nothing but Marco Polo's _Cambalu_, the capital of the Grand Khan, successively misread as Canibal, Caniba, Cariba. So also, "canoe" is a ghost-word, traced to a misreading of _scaphas_ as _canoas_ in the manuscript, or the Gothic text of the Latin version of the First Letter. It is interesting to learn that _maize_, in the forms _masa_, _maza_, ultimately from Portuguese _mararoca_, is the African name for Guinea corn. The transference of the name from Guinea corn to Indian corn, "rests on a misunderstanding of a passage in Peter Martyr's _First Decade_" (p. 123).

The question arises whether or not there had been a colony of Europeans, with African slaves in America, before the arrival of Columbus.

Fray Ramon Pane, Oviedo, and Las Casas give _conico_ as the Indian word for "farm, plantation." This is clearly the Mandingo _kunke_ "farm." The Indian word for "golo," according to the Journal entry for January 13, 1493, is _caona_. It is found also in the name of _Cacique Caonabo_, called in the _Journal of the Second Voyage_ "master of mines,"--the name being explained in the Libretto as "lord of the house of gold." Now the words for "gold" in the Negro languages are mostly derived from Arabic _din[=a]r_, which, through Hausa _zinaria_, and Pul _kanyera_, reaches Vei as _kani_. Evidently _canoa_, written also _guani_, is nothing but this Vei word. In "Cacique Caonabo," we have three Mande words in juxtaposition. _Cacique_ is not far removed from _kuntigi_, Soso _kundzi_, "chief,"--_caona_, that is _kani_, is "gold," and _boi_, from Arabic _beii_, _bai_, is "house." The chance that three such words should be identical in the dissimilar languages of Africa and America, is _nil_. The words are African, though represented as belonging to the spoken language of the New World. Moreover, Ramon Pane, in the account he wrote for Columbus of the Indian religion, gives as Indian words, the Mande _toto_, "frog," and the Malinke _kobo_, "bug." What is more important, he imputes to the Indians, a knowledge of the terrible West African itch, or _craworaw_, which he calls by the supposed Indian name _caracaracol_. The critic faces a dilemma. Either Ramon Pane lied, or he told the truth. Either he fabricated stories of Indians, which he drew from books or manuscript relations by Spanish and Portuguese traders, who were writing about Negroes in Africa, or there had been in Hispaniola, a pre-Columbian colony of European adventurers, with their African slaves, who taught the Indians the Negro words for "farm, gold, frog, bug, itch," etc., and also African folk-lore. No other hypothesis is possible.

{Transcriber's Note: The following paragraphs contain a number of
characters with diacritical marks which are represented as follows:
[=a] a-macron
[=o] o-macron
[=e] e-macron
[>e] e-caron
[>z] z-caron}

The documentary and philological history of tobacco smoking and the cultivation of edible roots, shows additional convincing evidence of the influence of Africa on the culture of America in the colonial period. Columbus never saw the Indians smoking tobacco. According to the _Journal of the First Voyage_, on October 15, 1492, an Indian brought him a ball of earth and certain precious dried leaves. On November 16, two Spaniards reported that the Indians, carrying firebrands and leaves, used them to "take incense." In the _Journal of the Second Voyage_, Columbus (this part of the Journal is definitely ascribed to him by his son) writes of Indians spreading powder on a table, and sniffing it through a forked reed, thereby becoming intoxicated. Now the first account is suspiciously like a book-story of Oriental hashish-taking.--the second has no implication of smoking at all, while the third describes nothing but the process of taking a sternutatory. Indeed this last account is clearly based on a book account, in which there was a play on the Arabic words _tubb[=a]q_ "styptic" and _tabaq_ "table." Ramon Pane, when he tells of Indians sniffing the powder, calls it _caboba_, a mere Italianisation of the Arabic _qasabah_ "reed," transferring the name of the inhaler to the drug. Smoking tobacco through a forked reed of the sort described, has been proved by trial, to be impossible. As late as 1535, Oviedo is unable to tell a straightforward story of Indians smoking tobacco, but he adds the significant fact that the Negroes in the West _Indies_ smoked and cultivated tobacco. Negroes, by the way were first allowed to come to America in 1501,--two years later, Ovando, the governor of Hispaniola complained that they joined with the Indians to make trouble. By 1545, "smoking had become fairly universal in America" (p. 127). It cannot be argued that half a century is too short a time for a new vice to become so widespread. Consider the case of banana culture. Oviedo says that the first bananas were introduced into America in 1516. Within twenty years, the fruit was universally cultivated, while the Spanish name _platano_ has survived in a large number of derivatives in the Indian languages.

As far as the linguistic history of the tobacco-words in the Indian languages is concerned, it leads back to an eastern origin. In Arabic, _tubb[=a]q_ means "styptic." Tobacco leaves were used as a styptic by the Indians of Brazil in the sixteenth century. The Low Latin equivalent of the Arabic _tubb[=a]q_ "styptic," is _bitumen_, whence Portuguese _betume_, and French _betun_, _petun_. "The French traders," says Professor Wiener, "at the end of the sixteenth century, carried the word and the Brazilian brand of tobacco to Canada, and _petun_ became imbedded in several Indian languages. The older Huron word for "tobacco" is derived from the Carib _yuli_, which itself is from a Mandingo word. Thus, while the Carib and Arawak influence is apparent in the direction from Florida, to the Huron country, the Brazilian influence proceeds up the St. Lawrence. The whole Atlantic triangle between these two converging lines was left uninfluenced by these two streams, and here, neither Carib nor Brazilian words for "tobacco," nor the moundbuilders' craft have been found. Here the "tobacco" words proceeded northward from Virginia, where the oldest form of the words is an abbreviated Span. _tabaco_, or Fr. _tabao_ (p. 191). The Carib _yuli_ "smoke," is found in Carib and Arawak, side by side with derivatives of Mande _tama_, _tawa_, which are also in the Algonkian languages. The fact that the Hurons, apparently the first Indians to plant tobacco, have no native word for the plant is significant. It shows that the Hurons learned to smoke from the Arawaks or Caribs, then already under Negro influence, and at a time prior to the introduction of the tobacco-plant into Canada by the French. When we consider, then, that tobacco is native to Africa, that _tubb[=a]q_ and _petun_ are the ancestors of the Indian names for the weed, that by 1503, Negroes in large numbers were living in America, deserting their masters to join the Indians, that the Negroes in America smoked and raised tobacco, the conclusion is inescapable that tobacco smoking was discovered and taught by them to the Indians and the Europeans.

"The tobacco-pipe in America," says Professor Wiener, "began its career as a Mandingo amulet" (p. 184). This statement will distress the American archaeologists, but the arguments in support of it cannot be overcome. A counter-claim of pre-Columbian antiquity for pipes found in the mounds cannot be made, since it is so clearly shown that the mounds are not prehistoric, but were fortifications erected along the lines of communication from Florida to the Huron country, to protect the overland trade established in the beginning of the sixteenth century.

In the _Journal of the First Voyage_, we find mention of _ajes_ and _niames_, as name of edible roots, but the account hopelessly confuses reports of yams, sweet potatoes and manioc. Neither yams nor sweet potatoes are native to America, and both bear in America, only African names. Oviedo indeed, says distinctly, that the _name_ is "a foreign fruit, and not native to these Indies,"--also, that "it came with that evil lot of Negroes, ... of whom there is a greater number than is necessary, on account of their rebellions" (pp. 203-4). Now in Africa the yam (Dioscorea), cultivated before the coming of the Europeans, is known by names derived from Arabic _arum_ and _gambah_, _e.g._, Ewe _ad[>e]_, _ad[>z]e_, Mandingo _nyambe_, Malinke _nyeme ku_,--whence the supposed Indian names, _aje_, _age_, _niame_, _igname_, used indiscriminately of any edible roots. The African names of the manioc have come from Arabic _'uruq_ "roots," notably in the Congo languages, _y[=o]ka_, _y[=e]ke_, _edioko_, plural _madioka_, whence, as the plant was introduced into America, it was known there as _vuca_, _mandioca_. As to sweet potatoes and peanuts, the former were cultivated in Asia before the discovery of America, while the latter, mentioned by Ibn Batutah as an article of food in Africa, took to the New World, their African names _mandube_, _goober_ and _pinder_ (compare Mozambique _manduwe_, Basunde _nguba_, Nyombo _pinda_). Professor Wiener's conclusion is that manioc culture was taught to the Brazilian Indians before 1492 by Portuguese castaways, who knew of the economic importance of the plant in Africa, while the peanut, spreading north and south from the Antilles, may also have reached America a few years before Columbus.

The numerous full-page illustrations are extremely helpful in aiding the reader to a clear understanding of difficult points in the discussion.

The book is epoch-making. To all seekers of the truth, the coming of the second volume, in which Professor Wiener will deal exhaustively with the Negro element in Indian culture, will be an eagerly anticipated event.

PHILLIPS BARRY, A.M., S.T.B.
CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS

* * * * *

_A Comparative Study of the Bantu and Semi-Bantu Languages._ By
SIR HARRY H. JOHNSTON, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., D.Sc. (Cambs). Oxford:
at the Clarendon Press, 1919, pp. 815, 2 sketch maps.

The author of this monumental work, in the opinion of the reviewer, is in himself a composite of many of the capacities, which, combined or singly in her subjects have made the greatness of Britain. He has been a great colonial administrator, a distinguished African explorer; he is a talented artist, and has recently astonished the literary world by producing what H. G. Wells declares to be one of the best first novels he has ever read. The contributions of Sir Harry Johnston to the sciences of botany, zoology, and anthropology are truly prodigious. It is in the last named field that his major interests have lain, and a succession of important works have established him as the foremost authority upon the ethnology of Africa and upon the anthropology of the Negro race.

This ponderous volume on the Bantu and Semi-Bantu languages is the first part of a work which represents the fruit of many years of study of multitudinous African languages and dialects. The major portion of the book consists of illustrative vocabularies of 366 Bantu and 87 Semi-Bantu languages and dialects with an extensive bibliography. A competent criticism of this portion of the work can be made by no one but a philologist with a special knowledge of African languages. The present reviewer does not possess these qualifications. Nevertheless it is obvious to any student of Africa that the publication of this work places a mine of useful information at the disposal of the linguist, the grammarian, and the missionary, and will also be invaluable to the student of African ethnology and to the physical anthropologist.

The first chapter sketches the history of research into the Bantu laguages. The contributions of various philosophists are appraised.

The second chapter on the distribution and character of the Bantu languages is of greatest interest to the layman and to the general anthropologist. We are informed that the Bantu languages "constitute a very distinct type of speech which, as contrasted with others amongst the group of Negro tongues, is remarkable as a rule for Italian melodiousness, simplicity and frequency of its vowel sounds, and the comparative ease with which its exemplars can be acquired and spoken by Europeans" (p. 15). "This one Negro language family now covers the whole of the southern third of Africa, with the exception of very small areas in the southwest (still inhabited sparsely by Hottentot and Bushman tribes) and a few patches of the inner Congo basin" (p. 15). Throughout Africa, north of the Bantu border line, the traveller meets with numerous languages widely different and mutually incomprehensible whereas with a knowledge of one Bantu language it is not difficult to understand the structure and even the vocabulary of others. The importance of this language family in Africa is therefore obvious. The author defines clearly the special and peculiar characteristics of Bantu languages. There follows an interesting discussion of the origin and spread of these languages. Probably the parent speech was spoken originally in the very heart of Africa, somewhere between the basins of the Upper Nile, the Bahr-al-ghazal, the Mubangi, and the Upper Benue. The archaic Bantu seem first to have moved eastward, toward the Mountain Nile and the Great Lakes. Probably they remained in the Nile Valley north of the Albert Nyanza "till at least as late as three or four hundred years before Christ--late enough to have been in full possession of goats and oxen and to have received the domestic fowl from Egypt or Abyssinia. They then embarked upon their great career of conquering and colonizing the southern third of Africa" (p. 22).

The original Bantu invaders found before them in Central and South Africa other peoples--Negroes of different types, pygmies, Bushmen, and Hottentots. "The first great Bantu migrations undoubtedly emanated from the vicinity of the Victoria Nyanza and the north Tanganyika, and were directed round and not through the Congo forests" (p. 24). On the basis of linguistic, ethnological and anthropological evidence Sir Harry is led to deduce that at a critical period in their career the Negro speakers of the early Bantu languages were brought under the influence of a semi-Caucasian race from the north or northeast. This contact gave rise to the many handsome-featured pale-skinned castes and ruling clans in so many of the Bantu peoples.

The following statement is of great anthropological importance: "The Bantu-speaking peoples of Africa, ... do _not_ constitute a race apart from the other negroes or offer any homogeneity of physical type. But on the whole they represent so much the average negro type that 'Bantu' is still in favor as a physical definition among craniologists. In reality, they are just fifty millions of Negroes whose speech belongs to one of the many language families of 'Negro type'; only in this case the language family instead of being confined in its range to a hundred villages or two hundred square miles, is spread over the southern third of Africa--say over 3,500,000 square miles--from the Cameroons, the Northern Congo, the Nyanzas, and the Mombasa coast to Cape Colony and Natal" (p. 25), Bantu languages are spoken by peoples of diverse physical types.

"Yet about the Bantu speech and the culture which accompanies it (ordinarily) there is a suggestion, strengthened by the association of these languages with metal working (iron more especially), with agriculture, cultivated plants, and cattle-keeping, that adds to the impression derived from their legends, their religious beliefs, games, and weapons. It is thought that the Bantu language family was finally moulded by some non-Negro incomers of possibly Hamitic affinities, akin at any rate in physique and culture, if not in language, to the dynastic Egyptians, the Galas, and perhaps most of all to those 'Ethiopians' of mixed Egyptian and Negro-Nubian stock that down to one thousand years ago inhabited the Nile basin south of Wadi Halfa and north of Kordofan." (Pp. 25-26.)

Sir Harry attributes most of the higher cultural elements associated with the Bantu languages to the non-Negro invaders. He believes that the Bantu invasions of southern and central Africa cannot be referred back much earlier than the second century B. C., and that the differentiation of the more than two hundred forms of Bantu speech occurred subsequently and rapidly.

To the student of African ethnography this volume is a great disappointment in one respect. The sketch map showing the distribution of Bantu and Semi-Bantu languages is absurdly inadequate. The writer of this review had confidently expected an authoritative large-scale map showing the distribution of linguistic families, dialects, and tribes. It is to be hoped that such a map will form a part of the completed work.

E. A. HOOTON.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

* * * * *

_History of the United States from Hayes to McKinley, 1877-1896._
By JAMES FORD RHODES, LL.D., D.Litt. Volume VIII, 1877-1896. The
Macmillan Company, New York, 1919. Pp. 484.

This is supposed to be a continuation of Mr. Rhodes _History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877_. As one, however, considers the treatment of the former work in comparison with this recent treatise, he must conclude that the author has not maintained the standard set in his earlier volumes which show deeper insight and a more scientific point of view. Persons who have looked forward to the continuation of Mr. Rhodes's comprehensive history from the transition period of Hayes' administration will certainly be disappointed in observing how he has failed in tracing the threads of history, which in our time, have become momentous. After reading the volume one is still at a loss as to what forces in our national life the author considers as being actually in the making during the period which the volume covers.

The work begins with a treatment of Hayes' administration setting forth facts which have appeared elsewhere in the author's studies in this particular period. As in other works, the author defends almost everything Hayes did and arraigns the Reconstruction Republicans who were opposed to him. He then presents in an unscientific way the brief discussion of economic questions bearing on railroad rates, wages, strikes, mobs and riots. Financial depression, the silver question and the valuable service of John Sherman are given considerable attention. Valuable facts are set forth in his discussion of civil service reform, the tariff commission and the Chinese question. Too much of the book, however, is devoted to merely political matter involving a detailed discussion of campaigns and elections at the expense of the economic, constitutional and diplomatic movements decidedly influencing the history of this country.

In this work the author pays very little attention to the Negro except as he leaves the impression that the race was justly deprived of the suffrage and of holding office. He makes reference to the complaint of the Republicans to show that in disfranchising the Negro in the South to make that section solidly Democratic that every white voter in the South thereafter possessed the political power of two white voters in the North. He mentions also the federal election laws and the Force Bill but finally concludes that the experiment of making the Negro a citizen was a failure. Here again Mr. Rhodes shows his lack of knowledge of human affairs in that he studies history only in the present tense. No man at present is wise enough to say whether we shall finally obtain more good than bad results from the Reconstruction, for we are too close to that part of our history to make a proper estimate of these events.

* * * * *

_The Negro Year Book._ Edited by MONROE N. WORK, Director of
Department of Records and Research, Tuskegee Normal and
Industrial Institute. The Negro Year Book Publishing Company,
Tuskegee Institute, Alabama, 1919. Pp. 523.

There has appeared for 1918-1919 a new edition of the _Negro Year Book_ to which students of Negro Life and History have learned to look for information concerning the Negro. This volume appears with a table of contents and a useful index to the numerous facts compiled. The volume not only covers the field of former editions but includes also much up to date material throwing light on Negro current history. The very first portion of the work is entitled _Fifty-three Years of Progress, 1866-1919_. This is a statistical study of Negro schools, Negro ownership of property, and Negro enterprise. The reader will be interested in such information as illiteracy, music, painters, actors, occupations, agriculture, business, and the study of crime.

The Negro Year Book is a desirable step in the right direction. Mr. Work and his coworkers deserve unusual praise for this undertaking in a field where for a number of years yet to come the returns must necessarily be meagre. The work meets a long felt want of statistical information as to exactly what the Negro people are doing. These facts will serve not only as an inspiration to the race itself but to refute so much misinformation often circulated to do Negroes injury. It is earnestly hoped that the managers of this work will find it possible in the near future to publish an annual volume and to this end the public should give the movement unstinted support to make such an undertaking financially profitable.

NOTES

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has published a monograph entitled _Negro Migration during the War_ by Mr. Emmett J. Scott, Secretary-Treasurer of Howard University. This is the first effort at a detailed treatment of the movement of the Negroes from the South to the North. It has such interesting chapters as the causes of the migration, stimulation of the movement, the call of the self-sufficient North, the draining of the black belt, efforts to check the movement, the effect of the migration on the South, the situation in the congested districts in the North and West, and remedies for relief. Persons who have an interest in this conspicuous event of our internal history will find it profitable to read this volume.

The Illinois Centennial Commission has published Volume V of the _Modern Commonwealth_, a history of that State. On page 21 appears this paragraph:

"Half way between the native stock and the foreign born stands the Negro population, practically all of whom have drifted into the state since the Civil War. In 1870 there were only 28,762 Negroes in Illinois, but since that time they have been increasing steadily and, with the exception of the decade 1880-1890, at a more rapid rate than the white population. Especially rapid was the growth in the decade ending with 1870, when it was 277 per cent or almost four times the rate of increase of the white population. As a result of this influx of Negroes the proportion which they constitute of the total population has increased very steadily from 1.1 per cent in 1870 to 1.9 per cent in 1910. But the absolute number is still small, amounting only to 109,049 at the last census."

The American Negro Academy has published Number 20 of its _Occasional Papers_ containing a study of _Alexander Crummell, an Apostle of Negro Culture_ by William H. Ferris. This dissertation sets forth not only the main facts of the life of the subject of the sketch but gives also some interesting history in connection with the founding of the American Negro Academy.

Major John R. Lynch, one of the most conspicuous figures of the Reconstruction period now living, has discovered certain errors in the Reconstruction records published in the January number of the Journal of Negro History, and has written the editor the following letter to make the necessary corrections:

4352 FORESTVILLE AVENUE,
CHICAGO, May 17th, 1920.

_Editor, Journal of Negro History._

In compliance with your request I write this to point out a few
errors which appeared in the January 1920 issue of the Journal
covering the Reconstruction period.

Page 67 the name of Benjamin F. Turner appears as a member of the
43d Congress, and Jeremiah Haralson as a member of the 44th
Congress. Turner was a member of the 42d but not of the 43d
Congress.

Haralson and Rapier were members of the 43d Congress, both having
been elected in 1872.

On page 73, Rubert Gleed should be Robert Gleed. A.R. Davis
should be A. K. Davis, Dr. Stiles should be Dr. Stites, W.H.
Fonte should be W. H. Foote.

On page 74, H. M. Faley should be H. M. Foley. To the list of
Colored men elected to that Legislature should be added the name
of J. M. Wilson, of Marion County.

On the same page is the statement: "John R. Lynch elected speaker
of the House." This is incorrect. Lynch was elected speaker in
January 1872, by the Legislature that was elected in November
1871. The man who was elected speaker in January 1870, by the
Legislature that was elected in November 1869, was Judge Freeman
E. Franklin, a white Republican from Yazoo County. Shortly after
the adjournment of the first session of that Legislature speaker
Franklin died. When the second session convened in January 1871
Hon. H. W. Warren, a white Republican from Leake County was
elected speaker for the unexpired term.

Respectfully yours,
(Signed) JOHN R. LYNCH.

THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. V--OCTOBER, 1920--NO. 4

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN BEARING ON THE RETURN OF NEGRO SLAVES, 1783-1828[1]

Diplomatic relations bearing on the Negro of the Revolutionary period constitute one of the mooted questions of American foreign policy. Yet although this question was then one of the disturbing factors in our relations with Great Britain, it has hitherto passed unnoticed.[2] As a large number of Negroes were taken from the United States by Great Britain during the Revolutionary War there followed so much effort to secure the return of these Negroes that the subject had to be dealt with in the Treaty of Paris which ended the war in 1783. So numerous were the infractions of the stipulation prohibiting the carrying off of the Negroes and so fruitless were the discussions resulting from the non-fulfillment of the articles in the treaty that several diplomatic representatives were sent on missions to Great Britain, the last of which ended with the Jay Treaty of 1794. Obviously, no satisfactory settlement as to the Negro could then be reached. An array of evidence from the sources[3] shows that the question was frequently discussed and that its significance lies in its absence from the stipulations of the Jay Treaty. It is evident, moreover, that the United States was not satisfied with this treaty and that between Great Britain and this country there was widening a breach which culminated in the War of 1812, during which Great Britain committed the same offence that she did during the war for independence.[4]

How can one account then for the unfavorable attitude of Great Britain toward the return of the Negro fugitives? The humanitarian spirit of Great Britain which, by the celebrated decision of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case in 1772 guaranteed to every man his freedom as soon as he set foot on British soil, extended beyond the limits of the empire. Although this decision of the judge evoked some unfavorable comment, for slavery was the "normal condition of the Negro," his ideas were disseminated by the military authorities defending the Crown in America. During the Revolutionary War many of the British commanders issued proclamations of freedom to the Negro slaves. Lord Dunmore, the dethroned Governor of Virginia, was among the first to issue a proclamation of freedom[5] to all Negroes who would fight for the King. Soon thereafter, Clinton,[6] the Commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, issued a proclamation to the same effect. Still later, Cornwallis issued a proclamation specifying the grant of "freedom and protection" to all Negroes who would seek his command. Whatever motive prompted the issuance of these orders, it is evident that the status of the Negro during this "emergency" as regarded by Great Britain was that of a freeman.

To these proclamations many Negroes responded. For instance, General Greene learned on Long Island that a group of Negroes aggregating two hundred (200) had in July, 1776, sought freedom within the British lines and had been accepted as a regiment in that vicinity.[7] He reported, moreover, to General Washington in 1781 that enough Negroes in North Carolina to form two regiments had sought British freedom and protection and that they were being organized by the British.[8] Whether they came within the British lines as a result of these proclamations or in recognition of the laws of war "it has been computed by good judges" says Ramsay,[9] "that at the evacuation of one part, two hundred and forty-one Negroes and their families were taken off to St. Lucia in one transport, the _Scimitar_; and that between the years 1775 and 1783, 25,000 Negroes, that is, one-fifth of all the slaves, were taken from the State of South Carolina." In Georgia,[10] there was made a report that the loss was much greater, probably three-fourths or seven-eighths of all the Negroes in the State. Again, from an estimate made at the time, Jefferson observed that about thirty thousand Negroes were taken from Virginia.[11] From the other slave-holding States which were invaded by the British, many other Negroes were carried away from their masters. So effectively was the scheme carried out that fear was expressed throughout the South less the economic position of that section would be threatened. In consequence of such actions on the part of Great Britain, General Washington receded from the position of excluding Negroes from the American Army and took drastic steps in preventing the carrying away of other Negroes by Great Britain.[12]

Considered, therefore, as an American slave in time of peace and an American soldier in time of danger, it is no anomaly that the status of the Negro complicated the negotiations between military representatives of Great Britain and the United States. Extended but fruitless negotiations ensued. A satisfactory settlement of the return of the Negroes seemed impossible. With independence assured through the representatives assembled, the Treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783. Franklin urged in his communication with Oswald, 1779, that the question as to the return of Negroes taken away by Great Britain be adjusted immediately.[13] This suggestion was strengthened by the support given it by the American representative, Henry Laurens, who had been in confinement in London during the war and whose chance arrival on the closing day gave the subject increased importance. Thus credit for the incorporation of the article on the Negro into the Treaty of Paris is given to Henry Laurens.[14]

By the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris,[15] it was stipulated that the British troops should withdraw from the United States without carrying away or destroying any property belonging to the citizens of the United States. In spite of this agreement at the peace conference, this stipulation was not fulfilled by Great Britain. Convincing evidence of an infraction of this stipulation is seen in a letter written by General Washington to Sir Guy Carleton, May 6, 1783, in which the former expressed himself as being surprised to hear that embarkations of Negroes had taken place during the whole of that year.[16] He, moreover, expressed his private opinion to the effect that such an action "is totally different from the letter and spirit of the treaty." A few days thereafter the Virginia delegates in Congress wrote to the Governor of Virginia that they would make this the subject of a "pointed remonstrance from our minister in Europe to the British Court with a demand for reparation and in the meantime urge General Washington to insist on a more faithful observance of that stipulation at New York."[17]

Notwithstanding further orders which were issued by Sir Guy Carleton, May 12, 1783, to prevent the carrying away of any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants many other infractions of the provision were reported.[18] Even General Washington remarked[19] that "some of his own slaves and those of friends living with him were probably carried away to New York." "If by chance," continued he, "you should come at the knowledge of any of them, I will be much obliged by your securing them so that I can obtain them again." So numerous were the violations of this part of the treaty that Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, in a letter written to Vergennes, the Foreign Minister of France, asked for suggestions from France in regard to the infractions of this article of the Treaty of Paris. In it, he expressed the objection of the Crown, which was to the effect that Negroes had come within the British lines under the promise of freedom and protection and that this promise was fulfilled by Great Britain in preference to the stipulation in the treaty.[20]

The situation became more aggravated. The breach between the two countries was gradually widening. Sensing this acute situation, Washington suggested that Carleton meet him in a conference at Orangetown, New Jersey, May, 1783. At one of their meetings Washington called the attention of Carleton to several resolutions passed by Congress relating to the return of all Negroes and other property of American inhabitants taken away by the British forces. Concerning these, Carleton replied that he wished to be considered as giving no construction of the treaty, but that he "conceived it could not have been the intention of the British Government by the treaty of peace to reduce themselves to the necessity of violating their faith to the Negroes who came within the British lines under the proclamation of the predecessors in command."[21] In point of fact, however, he said "delivering up the Negroes to their former masters would be delivering them up--some to execution and others to punishments which would in his own opinion be a dishonorable violation of the public faith." He concluded, nevertheless, that if the sending off of the Negroes should hereafter be declared an infraction of the treaty, "compensation ought to be made by Great Britain to the owners."[22]

In regard to the last suggestion of Carleton, Washington observed that many difficulties would arise in compensating the proprietors for their Negroes. He also thought it impossible to ascertain the value of the Negroes, for the value of a slave, contended he, "consists chiefly in his industry and sobriety." Another difficulty Washington observed was that of identifying the slave. He was of the opinion that the slave would give the wrong name of his master. Washington considered this conduct on the part of General Carleton, moreover, a departure from both the letter and spirit of the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris.

In answer to these contentions Carleton said that as the Negroes were free and secured against their masters they could have no inducement to conceal their true name or that of their masters. In commending compensation Carleton was of the opinion that he was pursuing a course which would operate most for the security of the proprietors. "If the Negroes were left to themselves," he remarked, "numbers of them would very probably go off and not return to the parts of the country from whence they came or clandestinely would get on board the transports in such a manner as would not be in his power to prevent." "In either case," continued Carleton, "an inevitable loss would ensue to the proprietors."[23] But as the business was then conducted they had at least a chance for compensation.

In conformity with these views, Carleton suggested that commissioners be appointed by the two countries "to agree upon the mode of compensating as well as the amount and other points with respect to which there was no provision made in the treaty." This suggestion was approved by Congress, and in compliance with it Egbert Benson, William Smith, and Daniel Parker were appointed[24] with specific instructions from Washington to "assist representatives of Great Britain in inspecting and superintending the embarkation of persons and property in fulfillment of the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris."[25]

These commissioners began their work immediately by examining the claim of one Phillip Lott to a Negro named Thomas Francis[26] on board a vessel called the _Fair American_ in New York harbor and about to be carried to the island of Jamaica. Concerning this inquiry a pointed remonstrance was made to Sir Guy Carleton. After the details of the examination were presented to him, the commissioners requested Great Britain to prohibit its representatives from carrying away the Negro and to deliver Francis to Lott. Notifying Washington, June 14, 1783, of their progress, the commissioners reminded him that Sir Guy Carleton intimated an impropriety in the claim, as the property was not suggested to be in danger of being sent away. "This left room," said the commissioners, "for an idea that possibly property about to be sent away would be restored ... and we conceive it is now reduced to a certainty that all applications for the delivery of property will be fruitless and we therefore desist from them."[27]

A few days later the commissioners reported to Washington that in superintending an embarkation of fourteen transports bound for Nova Scotia "about 3000 souls, among whom were at least 130 Negroes who appeared to be property of the citizens of the United States," were carried away. They also indicated that these embarkations were made in spite of their presence and remonstrance and for this reason asked General Washington for "further directions on this subject."[28] Other reports of the commissioners to General Washington, June 17, 1783, show that on many other occasions Negroes not residing within the British lines were taken away. To the remonstrances of the commissioners, Sir Guy Carleton gave a deaf ear. They, in the meantime, wrote General Washington that they had interpreted Carleton's silence as a "determination that all future applications should remain equally unnoticed." That they realized that their efforts were fruitless goes without saying, for they confessed that their work was ineffective and that the British vessels were never subjected to any rigid inspections and it was, therefore, impossible to determine, from the register provided by Sir Guy Carleton, the exact number of Negroes carried away in those vessels.[29]

The work of the commissioners, nevertheless, was noteworthy. They called Washington's attention to the fact that Sir Guy Carleton affected to distinguish between the cases of such Negroes as came within the British lines in consequence of the promise of freedom and protection promulgated by Carleton's predecessors and such as came in either previous to the proclamations or subsequent to the cessation of hostilities. "Negroes of the first description," insisted Carleton, "were not included in the treaty." The commissioners soon realized that even this limited construction given to the article was not intended to be fulfilled by Carleton's subordinate officers. They based their contention upon the fact that printed certificates granting Negroes the privilege of embarking[30] were distributed by the commandant of New York City, "as their convenience might require."[31] These certificates fell into the hands of many persons for whom they were not intended. So loosely were they distributed that one was picked up by the commissioners who transmitted the same to General Washington.

On the other hand, the commissioners insisted that the treaty stipulated specifically that his Brittanic Majesty should withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the United States and from every port, place and harbor within the same without causing any destruction or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants.[32] With these two interpretations of the Seventh Article invariably insisted upon by Carleton on the one hand and the commissioners on the other an agreement was less likely to be reached and, in spite of the efforts to the contrary, the deportation of Negroes took place steadily until all the British departed.[33]

In the meantime, Congress was discussing the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. The non-observance of the Seventh Article on the part of Great Britain and the destruction worked by Carleton evoked many resolutions opposing the ratification of the treaty for the expressed reason that it did not provide for the loss of Negroes. One of these resolutions was to the effect that it was "inexpedient to concur in passing laws necessary for carrying into effect the treaty."[34] These efforts of Congress, however, like those of the commissioners were of no avail. Complaints of American citizens of the loss of their property were expressed by the representatives in Congress. They, to be sure, had their effect, for soon thereafter, Congress transferred the question of the return of Negroes to the realm of actual diplomacy.[35]

John Adams, 1788, who, by the way, was one of the representatives of the United States who signed the Treaty of Paris, received an appointment as representative of this country to England to settle the alleged violations of the Treaty of Paris. He was instructed in 1785 to press for a fulfillment of the terms of the treaty of peace on the part of Great Britain.[36] He had little time, however, to press his claim before representatives of Great Britain were inquiring why the United States did not perform her part in this reciprocal contract. To these inquiries, Adams replied that "America could not; that it was hardly a government at all." He, moreover, informed Congress that the reason assigned by Laurens for incorporating the Seventh Article was that the people of the United States would be unable to comply with the part of the treaty which respects debts unless the provision which respects Negroes was made. "This construction," he continued, "was never denied and that it seemed to be understood by the ministry that on a settlement with the United States compensation must be made."

Obviously, then, both Great Britain and America understood that the Seventh Article would be fulfilled by Great Britain only when the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Articles were fulfilled by the United States.[37] This point, however, was discussed pro and con for many months and was seldom admitted by the American diplomatic representatives, Adams himself said that he could "get no comfort from his mission." The construction given the Seventh Article making its fulfillment by Great Britain contingent upon the execution of other provisions only complicated matters.

Another mission was planned in 1789,[38] but before another representative was appointed Washington urged upon Gouverneur Morris, who contemplated visiting London, "to find out the reasons why Great Britain had not complied with the Seventh Article." In a letter written to Morris, October 13, 1789, Washington desired Morris to converse with his Brittanic Majesty's Ministers as to whether there was any objection to performing those articles remaining to be performed on his part. "Learn with precision," he concluded, "what they mean to do on this head." In compliance with this request, on April 7, 1790, Morris interviewed the British representative, the Duke of Leeds, who gave to him only "general assurances" for a faithful observance of the articles and, becoming a "little embarrassed," could not say how the matter in regard to the Negroes stood. After many days of silence, the Duke of Leeds, April 23, 1790, "lamented every circumstance" which delayed the fulfillment of engagements on the part of the United States.[39] He also indicated that, if circumstances rendered their final completion impracticable, he had no scruples in declaring the object of Great Britain would be to "retard the fulfillment of such subsequent parts of the treaty as depend entirely upon Great Britain until redress is granted to their subjects upon the specific points of the treaty itself or a fair and just compensation for the non-performance of those engagements on the part of the United States."[40]

Informing Washington of his progress, May 29, 1790, Morris disclosed the fact that he was no longer contending for the return of the Negroes, for that would involve either "breaking faith" with those whom they had seduced by the offer of freedom or the violation of the stipulation which they had made with the United States in the Treaty of Paris. In presenting America's side, however, he insisted upon compensation in order that it would not be difficult for the planters to show that they had sustained a heavy loss from the want of men to cultivate their lands and thereby produce the means of paying their debts. To this the Duke of Leeds replied that he wished to "consider the treaty subject generally" and thought that some compensation could be mutually made. He declared, nevertheless, that he would rather "make a new treaty than perform the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Paris."[41]

Subsequent diplomatic negotiations between Jefferson and Hammond, the Minister of Great Britain, indicate that Washington was not satisfied with the status of the case after Jefferson cited specific infractions of the Seventh Article of the treaty, enclosing documents supporting these claims. Hammond informed the United States, November 30, 1791, that the King had suspended the execution of the Seventh Article in consequence of the non-compliance on the part of the United States of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Articles. In short, he insisted that the stipulations should be performed in the order in which they stood. He stated, moreover, that the "two objects were so mutually connected with each other as not to admit of separation either in the mode of discussing them or in any subsequent engagements which might result from that discussion."[42]

It was soon evident then that such extended discussions were fruitless. This state of affairs, to be sure, could not exist very much longer. Citizens of the United States were pressing "more zealously" for the return of the Negroes. For almost a decade the subject had been discussed without an amicable adjustment. In a communication to the Congress, April 16, 1794, Washington showed that he had grasped the situation by informing that body of the fact that "despatches received from our minister in London contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain." He suggested, therefore, to the Senate that an envoy extraordinary be sent to England. To this end Washington appointed John Jay to settle the infractions of the Treaty of Paris.[43]

In Jay's instructions nothing was specifically said concerning the carrying away of the Negroes by the British, but, as it appeared from subsequent transactions, it is quite certain that the infractions of the Seventh Article as well as those of other articles were to be adjusted. In this wise, the "irrepressible question"--relating to the return of Negroes carried away by Great Britain during the Revolutionary War became one of the purposes of Jay's mission.[44]