Chapter IV: , which deals with the endeavors of John Woolman to

emancipate and elevate the Negro race, will be of unusual help to students of Negro history. Around Woolman and his coworkers, beginning in 1760, centered the effort toward the liberation of the race, which engaged the attention of the Friends, especially during the struggle for the rights of man. Carrying the doctrine of natural rights to its logical conclusion, Woolman was among the first to insist that Negroes had a natural right to be free both in body and mind. To this end, therefore, he bore testimony against slavery wherever he traveled in this country and abroad; and down to the close of his career he lived up to the conviction that all men are born equal before God "Who hath made of one blood all nations that dwell upon the face of the earth."

NOTES

Miss A. H. Smith, who during the last seven years has served the Association as Office Manager and Assistant to the Secretary-treasurer, has recently retired from the service. The Association is immeasurably indebted to Miss Smith for the faithful service which she has rendered the cause, and it will be difficult to fill her position. Although offered opportunities for earning a larger stipend elsewhere, she remained with the Association because of her interest in the work which it has been prosecuting. The Association wishes her well and earnestly hopes that she may be welcomed in some other field of usefulness.

The American Catholic Historical Society has announced a prize of $100 offered by this society for the best historical essay on the subject "Catholic Missionary Work Among the Colored People of the United States (1776-1866)." The prize money has been donated by the Most Rev. Sebastian Messmer, Archbishop of Milwaukee.

All persons who are interested in the welfare and progress of the Negroes of the United States are eligible to compete for the prize under the conditions specified by the Society. The conditions are:

The subject must be treated within the years specified (1776-1866). Although the history of Catholic missionary activity among the colored people of this country during the colonial period is not barred, the essays shall be judged upon their value for the years 1776-1866.

The essays shall be typewritten on one side of the page only, and shall not be less than 4,000 words and may not exceed 8,000 words.

All essays entered for the prize must be received by the Secretary of the American Catholic Historical Society, 715 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, not later than December 1, 1923.

Each essay shall be signed with a motto and accompanied with a sealed envelope marked on the outside with the same motto and enclosing the writer's name and address.

The committee appointed to act as judges for the competition is composed of: the Rev. Peter Guilday of the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C, Chairman; Dr. Lawrence Flick, of Philadelphia; Thomas F. Meehan, associate-editor of "America," New York; Dr. T. W. Turner, of Howard University, Washington, D. C.; and the Rev. Joseph Butsch, S. S. J., of St. Joseph's Seminary, Baltimore.

An arrangement has been made whereby contestants seeking guidance in research work in the preparation of the essay can obtain aid by writing to the chairman of the committee of judges.

* * * * *

The Oxford University Press has published a history of _The Partition and Colonization of Africa_, by Sir Charles Lucas. This work includes the territorial rearrangement resulting from the recent war.

Through _East and West_, London, S. B. de Burgh Edwardes has published _The History of Mauritius, 1507-1914_. A Mauritian himself, he has had every opportunity to write a readable and interesting volume.

_The History of the Conquest of Egypt, North Africa, and Spain_, by Ibn Abd Al-Hakam, is now being published through the Yale University Press in its Oriental Series. This work is the earliest account of Mohammedan conquests extant. It is edited from manuscripts in London, Paris and Leyden, by Professor Charles C. Torrey.

Herbert Jenkins, London, has brought out _The Mad Mullah of Somaliland_, by Douglas J. Jardine, an officer of the British administration in Somaliland from 1916 to 1921.

_The Royal Chronicle of Abyssinia_, an extract translated from the Ethiopic Chronicle in the British Museum by H. Weld Blundell, has been published by the Cambridge University Press.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPRING CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF NEGRO LIFE AND HISTORY HELD IN BALTIMORE, APRIL 5TH AND 6TH, 1923

The conference enjoyed the welcome and hospitality of Morgan College where the morning and afternoon sessions were held on the 5th, and of the Baltimore Public School System, the Druid Hill Avenue Branch of the Young Men's Christian Association, and the Bethel A. M. E. Church, which provided for the day sessions of the second day and for both evening sessions. The success of the meeting was due in a large measure to the cordial reception given the Association by Dr. J. O. Spencer, the president of Morgan College, and by Dr. Pezavia O'Connell and Dean L. M. McCoy. Mr. Mason A. Hawkins, Dr. Frederick Douglass, Dr. A. L. Gaines, and Mr. S. S. Booker willingly cooperated in the same way with respect to the meetings in the city.

The first session was held at Morgan College on Thursday at 11 A.M. Dr. Pezavia O'Connell, who presided, delivered an able address impressing upon the students of the institution the importance of the work undertaken by the Association. He was then followed by the officers of the Association, who outlined in detail the history, the purposes, and the achievements of the organization. Other remarks were later made by Miss Georgine Kelly Smith, who proved to be a very effective speaker in directing attention to certain neglected aspects of Negro life.

At 3 o'clock in the afternoon, the officers of the Association assembled with the faculty of Morgan College in a joint meeting to acquaint the instructors with the plans and procedure of the Association and to secure their cooperation in the extension of this work through some local organization which may direct its attention to the collection of Negro folklore and to the preservation of the records of the Negroes in Maryland. Much interest was aroused and steps were taken to effect such an organization.

The first evening session was held at 8 o'clock on the same day at Bethel A. M. E. Church in the city of Baltimore. On this occasion the Spring Conference was welcomed to the city by Mr. Mason A. Hawkins, the principal of the Colored High School, who briefly discussed the importance of the work and the opportunity which it afforded Baltimore for becoming better informed as to what is being done for the uplift of the race through this scientific effort. The response to this address was made by President G. A. Edwards of Kittrell College. He made a favorable impression upon the audience by directing attention to the importance of securing the cooperation of a large number of persons with an intelligent interest in the race. He emphasized the fact that such a significant task should not be neglected and left to the sacrifices of the few persons of vision who, without adequate support, may unduly toil in the prosecution of this task and thus fail to succeed because of bearing a burden which should be shared by all.

The principal addresses of the evening were delivered by Dr. J. O. Spencer, Dr. C. G. Woodson and Dean Kelly Miller. Dr. Spencer discussed the subject "Thinking Straight on the Color Line." He deprecated the lack of information on the Negro and showed how, in the midst of ignorance as to the actual achievements of the race, persons have learned to hate men of color because they are not acquainted with them. To remedy the situation, then, there must be a universal interest in the study of Negro life and history. Dr. Woodson sketched in brief the record of the Negro from time immemorial, mentioning the important contributions of the race to civilization and the necessity for the study of this record to inspire the race with a hope of greater achievement and to disabuse the mind of the white man of the idea of racial superiority. Dean Kelly Miller spoke on the worthwhile qualities of the Negro. His aim was to show that every race has in it certain elements which are peculiar to that group, thus giving it in this respect a chance to make a contribution which can come from no other source. He, therefore, emphasized the importance of encouraging the best in all races and giving to each every possible opportunity for development. Among the exceptional qualities which he ascribed to the Negro are patience, meekness, the gift of music, the sense of art, response to religion, and brotherly love.

The first session of the second day was held at 1 o'clock P.M., at the Douglass Theatre. This occasion was that of an assembly of the members of the Association, together with the students and faculty of the Baltimore Colored High School and other members of the local teaching corps. The important address was delivered by Professor John R. Hawkins, president of the organization. The purpose of this discourse was to outline in the simplest and most effective way possible the necessity for children knowing more about themselves and about their ancestors. The speaker endeavored to show how the achievements of the Negro have been omitted from the textbooks studied by the youth in the public schools so as to impress the Negro with the superiority of other races and the so-called inferiority of their own. These students were urged, therefore, to avail themselves of the opportunity to become acquainted with this neglected aspect of history through supplementary reading in the home, in clubs, and in literary circles. How this would stimulate the mind of the youth and inspire them to greater achievement through knowledge of the distinguished service of others of their race in the past, was eloquently emphasized by the speaker. Some remarks were made by President G. A. Edwards of Kittrell College and Dr. C. G. Woodson.

At 3 o'clock P. M. the Spring Conference assembled at the Druid Hill Avenue Branch of the Y. M. C. A. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Negro history from the various points view of the teacher, the minister, the editor, and the professional man. The discussion was opened by Mr. L. S. James, principal of the Maryland Normal and Industrial School, with a brief survey of the situation in Maryland with respect to the development of the Negro schools and especially in the matter of teaching Negro history. His very informing address was well received. Then, appeared Mr. G. Smith Wormley of the Myrtilla Miner Normal School, Washington, D. C. He presented Negro history from the point of view of the teacher. He treated the matter pedagogically, setting forth the purpose of the teaching of history and at the same time urging upon his hearers the necessity for teaching the leading facts of Negro history by correlating them with the topics of history as it is now offered in the schools. His illuminating discourse made a favorable impression and evoked discussions from various persons.

Among those prompted to speak were Mrs. N. F. Mossell of Philadelphia, who spoke of history from the point of view of the child, showing how necessary it is to supply the young people with elementary reading matter, serving as a stepping stone to the teaching of the more difficult phases of the record of the Negro. Dr. George F. Bragg explained how the minister is concerned with the history of the Negro and briefly summarized the important contributions of Negro ministers not only to the history of the race, but to the preservation of its records. Mrs. Ella Spencer Murray expressed her interest in the work and outlined how each one might aid the movement by soliciting members and subscribers throughout the country, especially among white persons who may be neutral or indifferent as to what the Negro has achieved.

Mr. S. W. Rutherford, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Association, delivered a short address to point out how by organized effort, with courage and concentration, the movement may be further promoted and the work expanded throughout the country by cooperating with the Director who should and must have the support of all interested in the Negro. Bishop John Hurst then mentioned briefly the necessity for more publicity, and expressed his interest in securing a fund adequate to the employment of a staff to popularize the work and increase the income of the Association. Dr. Thomas E. Brown, of Morgan College, delivered a short address emphasizing the necessity for a more scientific study of the records and directing attention to the undeveloped possibilities of the race which cry for the attention of those scholars with the necessary training to treat the records of this group scientifically.

The session closed with an address by Ex-Congressman Thomas E. Miller of South Carolina. He proved to be an attractive figure at the sessions of the Association, being a man well advanced in years, one who served in local offices during the Reconstruction and finally reached Congress. He restricted his remarks to the discussion of the free Negro prior to the Civil War, the class to which he himself belonged. He asserted that many free Negroes were never known. Because of the fear of disclosing their status, many of them were recorded as slaves. In the same way, some of their important achievements were kept in secret for the reason that freedom of conduct in their case was proscribed by public opinion. Furthermore, he stated that they were often misunderstood because they are reported as having hated the slaves. He then explained the relations of the free Negro to the whites and to the slaves, bringing out how they were subjected to punishment for associating with the bondmen, and, therefore, became estranged from them by the processes of safeguarded instruction in the caste system of the South.

At the second evening session at the Bethel A. M. E. Church, two important addresses were delivered. The first one, "Hints on Race History from an Old Book" by Prof. Leslie P. Hill, proved to be unusually instructive. This discourse was based upon Abbé Grégoire's _Litterature des Nègres_, intended to emphasize the unusual achievements of the Negroes as a proof that because of their superior intellect they were entitled to freedom. Mr. Hill directed very little attention to the characters well known in this country, restricting his remarks largely to those who rose to prominence in European countries where their records have never been studied to the extent of impressing the historians of this country.

Then appeared Dr. William Pickens, the Field Secretary for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who delivered a very enthusiastic address on "Negro History in the Public Schools." Dr. Pickens showed not only how uninformed the white people are as to the record of the Negro, but that the race itself knows very little of what it has achieved. He briefly mentioned a number of instances connected with the local history of Maryland, of which the people themselves living on the very soil on which these events took place, knew nothing. He then adversely criticized the attitude of the public school systems toward the teaching of Negro history and urged his hearers to take seriously the question of memorializing and influencing educational authorities to incorporate into their courses of study textbooks on Negro history setting forth the truth as it is. He urged, moreover, that in the meantime while such a battle is being waged to reach this end, the Negroes themselves should through clubs and literary circles make a systematic study of such works.

* * * * *

THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. VIII., NO. 4 OCTOBER, 1923

ABRAM HANNIBAL, THE FAVORITE OF PETER THE GREAT

Abram Hannibal, more commonly known as the "Negro of Peter the Great," or "Peter's Negro" was one of the quaintest figures in the Russian history of eighteenth century. From slavery to mastership and riches his peculiar fate led him. He began his life under yoke in Africa but died a general and wealthy landlord of the frozen North, leaving his children and grandchildren to be prominent in the politics and literature of Russia.

The name of "Peter's Negro," no doubt, belongs to history; but comparatively little is known of him, many important details of his biography being still incomplete and unascertained. Outside of the Russian sources there were Hannibal's own memoirs, written in French, but not long before his death Abram burned them. About the beginning of nineteenth century there appeared Hannibal's biography in German, written by a certain Helbig (_Russische Gunstlinge_), but hardly anything trustworthy could be learned from this work. As far as we know, nothing was ever published of "Peter's Negro" in English. Even the Russian sources are mainly official records and dry documents, not of a great historical value, if of any. The best information about Hannibal may be obtained from the unfinished novel _The Negro of Peter the Great_ (1827) and other works by Pushkin, Hannibal's great-grandson, the famous writer and founder of the modern school of nineteenth century literature in Russia.

Some of later historians doubt many of the assertions of Pushkin, holding that, great as the poet was, he nevertheless was subject to the common human weakness of exaggerating one's forefathers' merits. The important facts of his career, however, have been learned. In the year 1705, as for many years before and after, thousands of Negroes were made prisoners and brought from the interior to the coasts of the dark continent to be shipped to the slave markets of America and Asia. Among others there was a little boy, barely eight years of age, whom Arabs, his masters, called Ibrahim. He was sold to the Turks and, the same year, brought to Constantinople. His fate could be easily guessed. He was wanted for a slave in a rich Turkish home, or perhaps an overseer in a harem. He became the latter after being brutally handled.

But at that time Savva Ragusinsky, a Russian nobleman, after a short stay in Turkey was preparing to leave for his home country. He wanted to bring a present of some kind to his Czar Peter, the stern reformer of Russia, afterwards called "the Great." Ragusinsky knew the Czar's love for curious objects and thought nothing better than two live black boys could win him Peter's favor. The Czar had at his court many servants of different races, brought to St. Petersburg from all over the world, but only a few Negroes were among them.

Ragusinsky bought or, according to some documents, simply stole several Negro boys, who only a few months before were brought to the slave-shacks of Sultan Selim II. One of these, who started on a long trip to their new Northern home, was the little Ibrahim. The Czar liked the rare present and almost from the beginning distinguished Ibrahim from other slaves. The boy was unusually bright for his age. He quickly picked up the Russian language and alphabet, and before long began to feel that the court of St. Petersburg was his home. Peter kept Ibrahim in his apartments, and Ibrahim accompanied the Czar in latter's journeys through Russia and foreign countries, not as a servant but rather as one of the family. When because of the war of Russia with Sweden, Peter had to be constantly with his army, Ibrahim shared with his friend-master all the dangers and privations of bivouac-life.

In 1707, while in Vilno, Ibrahim was christened in Orthodox faith. His father-in-Christ was the Czar himself, who was assisted in this task by the Polish queen, the wife of King Augustus. The little Negro was given a new name of Peter, but he cried and refused to answer it, preferring his old Arab name. The Russians, however, could not get used to the strange Oriental sound and called him Abram instead of Ibrahim. His surname--Hannibal--was given to him by the Czar in memory of the famous Carthaginian.

In 1716 Peter went on his second tour of Western Europe with Hannibal as usual accompanying him. Among other countries they visited France, and here Hannibal was left to begin his studies more seriously. Hannibal, then 19 years old, showed fair capacity for mathematics and physics. Supplied by the Czar with money and other means of assistance, he entered a military engineering academy in Paris, where he remained for about 2 years. He joined the French army afterwards, which was then engaged in the war against Spain, and participated in many battles. He proved to be an able engineer and a good commander. In one of the battles--"an underground combat," as it is related in an eighteenth century document--Hannibal was wounded in the head, but not dangerously, and was brought back to Paris.

Hannibal stayed in Paris till 1723, communicating with the Czar by letters which are preserved in St. Petersburg state archives. Hannibal complained in them that the Russian treasury and Peter himself almost completely forgot about him, compelling him to live in great poverty on the verge of starvation. If he could obtain no allowance, Hannibal wrote, he would have to walk from Paris to Moscow, begging alms on the way.

Pushkin, however, asserts that his great-grandfather while in Paris was well provided for by Peter with money and had an unlimited opportunity to mingle in the French society circles. His appearance aroused curiosity; his wits, education and war record respect. His black curls with a bandage over them--his wound did not heal completely for a long time--could be frequently seen amid white wigs of the French aristocrats. He was well received in the best salons of Paris, being everywhere known as "le nègre du Czar." The Duke of Orleans, who as a regent ruled over France at that time, favored Hannibal with his attention and when in 1723 Peter asked Abram to come back to Russia, the regent tried to persuade Hannibal to remain in France, promising him a brilliant military and court career. Although the Czar permitted Hannibal to take his own choice between France and Russia, the young man decided to return to St. Petersburg.

Thus, contradicting Hannibal's complaining letters, Pushkin describes his great-grandfather's sojourn in Paris. He evidently based his testimony on the family accounts, which as almost any such narratives contain perhaps more fiction than history. But, on the other hand, the historians, who contradict Pushkin, have no other proof of their infallibility than these Paris letters of Hannibal.

Reliable information concerning Hannibal after his return to Russia, however, is not so scarce. Immediately upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, Hannibal was appointed an officer in the Preobrajensky Guard-regiment. He became an "engineer-lieutenant" in the "Bombardir-company," of which the Czar himself was the captain. But another crisis was reached when, according to Pushkin, it appeared about that time that Hannibal was a son of a Negro king, and his elder brother came from Africa to St. Petersburg with an offer of a rich ransom for Hannibal. He met with no success, as Hannibal himself did not want to return to the village on the banks of Niger.

The situation did not seem so favorable for Hannibal, moreover, when in 1725 Peter the Great died. Menshikov, former pie-peddler and life-long favorite of the late Czar, elevated himself to the position of sole adviser to Peter's widow, Catherine I. He alone virtually ruled Russia for several years. When Catherine I died and young Peter II sat on the throne, Menshikov wanted the boy Emperor to marry his younger daughter. He feared, however, his numerous enemies at the court, among whom he counted Hannibal, the young Czar's instructor in mathematics. Consequently Hannibal was exiled to Siberia in 1727. Officially he was neither arrested nor deprived of his rank and property. He was sent to the borders of China with orders to "transfer from the town of Selenginsk into another location" and to "take an exact measure of the Great Chinese Wall." Menshikov evidently thought that the severe Siberian frosts would sooner or later kill the young African. But Hannibal being strong and healthy and accustomed from childhood to cold climate withstood the hardships of the Siberian wilderness.

In 1729 he fled from Selenginsk but was arrested before he could reach Europe. His papers and valuables taken from him, Hannibal was brought to Tomsk, a city in Western Siberia. There for some time he was kept as a prisoner, although his salary as an officer was still paid. In January of 1730 he was freed but not permitted to leave Siberia. He was appointed to serve in the Tomsk garrison as a major.

Soon afterwards St. Petersburg was the scene of a new coup-d'etat. Anna, a niece of Peter the Great, was summoned to the Russian throne. Counts Dolgorukov became the most powerful persons at the court. New hopes were aroused in Hannibal, as the Dolgorukovs were his friends, since the time he and they lived in France. Hannibal without asking or waiting for permission left Tomsk, but when some time after he arrived in St. Petersburg he learned that Dolgorukovs lost their influence as suddenly as they won it, that they were arrested, and after all their estates had been confiscated, were exiled to Siberia. Great dangers threatened Hannibal as a Dolgorukovs' friend. Biron, erstwhile a stable man but now adviser and lover of Anna, sought Hannibal's life. Field-marshal Minich, commander-in-chief of the Russian army, however, saved Hannibal by granting him a commission to inspect fortifications in Lifland. In a little village near Reval, then, Hannibal lived in obscurity for 10 years, fearing every day the arrival of a messenger from St. Petersburg with an order for his arrest.

Before his coming to Lifland, Hannibal married the beautiful daughter of a Greek captain by the name of Dioper. Almost from the first day of their marriage he began to suspect her infidelity. The birth of a white baby-girl proved his suspicions and justified their divorce. The Russian court sent Hannibal's wife to a convent, and Hannibal married Christina-Regina Von-Sheberg, a Lifland German woman. She gave birth to five sons, all of whom were mulattoes. His first wife's white daughter he kept in his home, gave her a good education and a considerable dowry, but never permitted her to come before his eyes.

In November of 1741 Elisabeth, a daughter of Peter the Great, was proclaimed the Empress of Russia. She immediately returned from exile all former favorites of her father. Among these was Hannibal, on whom she showered various honours. He was given the post of commandant of city of Reval. About ten villages with several thousands of white slaves were presented to him as his personal property. He was decorated with medals and ribbons and asked to come to St. Petersburg. He preferred, however, to stay on his newly acquired estates.

Other important tasks awaited him. In 1752 he was commissioned to fix the Russo-Swedish boundary line. In 1756 he was one of the members of the Ladoga Canal Commission and also of the Commission for the Inspection of the Russian Forts. In 1762, with a rank of general in chief, he retired from public service, being then an old man. His services were remembered at the court for a long time after, however, for once Catherine II asked him to compose a plan of St. Petersburg-Moscow Canal.

During his last years he was frequented by spells of sudden fear, the consequence of his old sufferings. He was especially afraid of the sound of a bell, imagining that his persecutors were coming again. Under one of these spells, as we mentioned above, he destroyed his memoirs not long before he died in 1782 in his eighty-fifth year.

He did not want his sons to join the army or be at the court, fearing they might be involved there in dangerous intrigue. Ivan, his elder son, joined the army against his will, and only after he won fame as a brilliant victor over the Turks could he on his knees receive his aged father's forgiveness. Ivan Hannibal distinguished himself not only as a strategist but as a man of a great personal valor as well. He participated in the Russian naval expedition to Greece and captured Navarin, a Turkish fort, in 1770. He was the hero of the Chesma battle. Returning to Russia in 1779 he founded the city of Kherson in the Ukraine, of which he was appointed a governor. Later Ivan Hannibal quarreled with Count Potemkin, lover of Catherine the Great and ruler of Southern Russia. The Empress defended Hannibal and decorated him, but he left the service and went to live in one of his numerous estates. There in 1801 he died.

His brother Ossip (Joseph) was a naval officer in the Black Sea Fleet and for several years navigated the Mediterranean. Of other sons of Abram Hannibal very little is known. Ossip's daughter Nadejda, a Creole of striking beauty, married Pushkin, of an ancient Russian noble family. In 1799 a son was born to them and named Alexander, who later won fame as the greatest poet of Russia. He was killed in 1837, while duelling with a diplomat over the honor of Pushkin's wife, who was not worth her great husband's noble love.

While all the works of Pushkin could be bound together in one volume, thousands of books have been written on him and on what he created. Numerous monuments are erected in his honor all over Russia; special magazines entirely dedicated to him are published; and in famous paintings by distinguished Russian artists are pictured different periods of Pushkin's short life. When you look at these paintings, black curls, olive skin and thick lips speak to you of Pushkin's race. He himself was proud of it, all but worshipping his great-grandfather in many of his verses.

ALBERT PARRY

THE MOVEMENT OF NEGROES FROM THE EAST TO THE GULF STATES FROM 1830 TO 1850

The migration of Negroes to the Gulf States, during the years 1830 to 1850, was from the point of view of the Negroes themselves wholly involuntary. The blacks, being at that time preponderately slave, accompanied their masters to new homes in the South and Southwest or constituted the traffic of the domestic slave trade. Explanation of their migration must be sought, therefore, not in any unrest that may have been manifested by the Negroes, but rather in the causes that underlay the movement of the masters to new homes, and that enabled the domestic slave trade to become a profitable enterprise.

This migration, which in some ways assumed a peculiar aspect, bears a definite relation to three general circumstances. In the first place, there was a comparative decline in the productiveness of the seaboard border slave States. In the second, the accessibility to the new lands and practically virgin soils of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana invited the migration of innumerable planters from the border States to this new region. Finally, the rapidly increasing demand of the planters of the Gulf region for slave labor with which to cultivate cotton and other native products tremendously stimulated the domestic slave trade.

Although the seaboard border States, led by Virginia, sent south the bulk of the slaves, it must not be thought that the migration was alone from these States. In fact, as early as 1840,[1] not only Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Delaware, but also North Carolina became slave-exporting areas. Later, too, when the impoverishment of her lands made impossible the further extension of cotton culture, South Carolina joined with these other States and Georgia in exporting slaves to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and, after 1845, to Texas.

The decline in the productiveness of some of the seaboard border slave States has been ascribed to various causes. The failure to rotate crops and the lack of proper and sufficient fertilizer necessary to prevent an impoverishment of the soil some hold to be primary causes. The almost complete dependence upon unskilled, unintelligent slave labor, the conviction prevalent everywhere in slave territory that such labor made that of white men dishonorable, together with the failure to develop fully the manufacturing facilities at hand, have been also generally advanced to explain the decline, particularly, of Maryland and Virginia.

The chief agricultural staple of these States was tobacco. The characteristic soil of the region--a sandy loam--while warm and stimulating was easily exhausted,[2] especially when the planters had improper and inefficient fertilizer, traceable in some measure to a numerical deficiency of live stock, and the incessant culture of tobacco, without crop rotation. The price of tobacco, moreover, was throughout the years from 1818 to 1840 exceedingly low and, at the same time, the newer States of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, as well as the Carolinas and Georgia, were producing large quantities of tobacco. The net result in Virginia and Maryland, therefore, was to make the culture of the plant exceedingly unprofitable.[3] It is held that the soil-exhausting character of tobacco culture, together with the falling prices of the plant, constituted the dominant factors in the decrease in value of agricultural lands of Virginia from $206,000,000 in 1816 to $80,000,000 in 1829.[4]

If the impoverishment of the land through tobacco culture was one factor in the declining productivity of Virginia and Maryland, the almost complete use of unskilled Negro slave labor, particularly in the former State, was decidedly another. Not only was slave labor costly, in that the non-producers, as well as the constant workers, had to be provided for, but also because of the overwhelming ignorance and inertia of such labor. "The grand secret of the difference between free labor and slave labor," wrote a former Virginia resident to the _New York Times_, "is that the latter is without intelligence and without motive."[5] A large tobacco planter of Virginia adds to this his testimony that the slave's incapacity to perform duties complex in nature, or requiring the least intelligence, precluded the cultivation there of the finer grades of tobacco.[6] While, therefore, the Negro slave was tractable and capable of hard work, he was, without strict supervision, a most unproductive worker. The universal employment of the slave despite his ignorance and inertia doubtless furnishes one clue to the failure of Virginia to exploit, in a reasonable degree, her manufacturing resources.[7]

This costly failure has been ascribed also to the reluctance of white labor to perform any duties to which slaves might be assigned. Slave owners and white laborers held in mutual repugnance the employment of white men at such tasks. According to Olmsted,[8] slave owners have held that the poor whites would refuse to do such work if possible, and, if compelled to submit, would do only so much as they found absolutely necessary. Under all circumstances they do such work reluctantly and "will not bear driving." "They cannot be worked to advantage with the slaves, and it is inconvenient to look after them, if you work them separately."

The natural consequence of the policy thus pursued by Virginia was, despite the fact of her early command over greater wealth and a larger population than the other States, to force her to descend, in part, from her former high estate.[9] A comparison of values of the agricultural lands of Virginia and Pennsylvania, in 1850, shows those of the latter, although of smaller acreage, to have a larger sale value an acre and a larger total value. A similar comparison between Virginia and New Jersey gives the same result.

That the conditions stated as obtaining in 1850 had long existed there seems to be no lack of evidence. Thomas Marshall made, in the Virginia legislature of 1831-'32, searching and detailed statements of the declining wealth and productivity of the State.[10] Such conditions as he pictured made plain that the planters of Virginia must either improve their lands by rehabilitating the soil, acquiring better farming implements, and improving their plow animals,[11] or migrate to the more promising lands elsewhere, or sell their slaves. The records show that by some planters one or another of these methods was adopted. Moreover, Maryland, a sister State of Virginia, because of the exhaustion of her soil by tobacco culture, found essential to her relief the same procedure.[12] With reference to Maryland, the census of 1840 shows an actual decrease over that of 1830 in the slave population[13] of the commonwealth.

To what parts, then, did these slaves go? The theatre of the largest expansion of slavery[14] was the "Western Cotton Belt," the section which shall be herein considered, comprehending parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Eastern Texas. The chief distinction between the soils of these States constituting the Atlantic Coastal Plain from Virginia to South Carolina and those of the "Western Cotton Belt" is the occurrence of extensive limestone belts in the latter. "The soils in these limestone belts are largely residual, calcareous and usually have a humus content, which gives the soil its black color"[15]--hence the name "Black Belt." The soils of these belts contain much clay and require careful preparation, but they are durable and extremely fertile. Moreover, an excellent water navigation[16] extending well into the region constituted an additional factor in the extension of the cotton culture and of Negro slavery into this territory.

According to Phillips,[17] the lands of the "Western Cotton Belt," most preferred in the early period, lay in two main areas, the soils of both of which were more lasting and fertile than those in the interior of the Atlantic States. "One of these areas formed a crescent across south-central Alabama, with its western horn reaching up the Tombigbee River into northeastern Mississippi." The soil of this area was of black loose loam. Everywhere it was thickly matted with grass and weeds, except where there was visible "limestone on the hill crests and prodigious cane brakes in the valleys." This tract known locally as the prairies or "Black Belt" was smaller than the other which extended along the Mississippi, on both sides, from northern Tennessee and Arkansas to the mouth of the Red River. This tract contained broad alluvial bottoms, as well as occasional hill districts of rich loam, the latter being especially noticeable around Natchez and Vicksburg. The broadest expanse of these bottoms, the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, received but few migrants prior to the middle "thirties." The planters seem to have settled first in the bottoms, while the other choice lands were competed for by the large and smaller planters, as well as the poor farmers.

These lands were not only, by soil and climate, ideally suited to the production of cotton, but they were reasonably cheap in price. As late as 1849 there was much uncultivated, though fertile agricultural land in each of the cotton-growing States. At that time the total acreage and the area in use in several of the Gulf States were listed as follows:[18]

State Total No. of Acres Acres Owned
Alabama 32,462,080 15,911,520
Louisiana 29,715,840 6,263,822
Mississippi 30,174,080 15,811,650

There was under these circumstances small wonder that there migrated planters from the worn-out lands of the seaboard slave States, including the less fertile districts of Georgia,[19] and parts of Kentucky and Tennessee. In the absence of statistics giving the exact number of slaves migrating thus with their owners, the estimates of contemporaries and of later writers may be serviceable. _The Virginia (Wheeling) Times_ said[20] that intelligent men of that day estimated the number of slaves exported from Virginia, during the year 1836, to be 120,000, of whom two-thirds (80,000) were carried south by their masters. The _Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine_ (vol. ii, 411, July, 1837) gives the _Natchez Courier_ as the authority for the estimate that during 1836 as many as 250,000 slaves, some of whom were accompanied by their masters, were transported from the older slave States to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.[21] P. A. Morse, of Louisiana, writing in 1857, says that "the augmentation of slaves within the cotton States was caused mostly by the migration of slave owners." On the basis of sources accessible to him, Morse estimated that three-fifths of the slaves removed from the border States to the farther South, from 1820 to 1850, migrated with their masters.[22] Accepting the "three-fifths estimate" of Morse, Collins has made deductions which indicate that approximately 15,900 slaves went south annually with their masters during the decade from 1830 to 1840; while during the next decade the annual migration was about 9,000.[23]

One of these migrant planters,[24] who, in 1835, left his tidewater estate in Gloucester County, Virginia, was Colonel Thomas S. Dabney. Prompted by the necessities of his family to seek more favorable soil, he sought land in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, finally settling in the one last mentioned. Colonel Dabney carried with him more than two hundred slaves, established himself on a plantation of four thousand acres, and each year contrived, by clearances, to put under cultivation an additional hundred acres. Planters of this type, with large numbers of slaves and sufficient funds to extend their holdings, tended to concentrate both slaves and lands in a few hands.

If the demand for new lands brought great numbers of slaves southward during the years from 1830 to 1850, there were also at work forces which caused many other slaves to be exported in the domestic slave traffic. The extension of the cotton culture in the more southern States, the increased exportation of cotton, the advancing profits therefrom, the development of large sugar plantations in Louisiana, and the decreased average working life of the slave created among the planters of this region an extraordinary demand for slave labor. At the same time such seaboard States as raised tobacco were suffering from a depression in the tobacco markets. The African slave trade, moreover, had been legally suppressed, thus rendering the seaboard and other border slave States the sole legal source of supply for the slave labor required by the lower South.

The income of some of the plantations on these fresh lands was immense.[25] It was considered not uncommon for a planter in Mississippi or Louisiana to receive an income of thirty thousand dollars annually. Extremely prosperous planters, it is said, took in from $80,000 to $120,000 in a single year. The enormous profits arising from such investments in the face of the unusual demand for slaves enabled prices of bondmen to rise inordinately high. Thus it was that a prime field hand, a Negro between the ages of twenty and thirty years, could command a price varying from five hundred to twelve hundred dollars,[26] and, in some cases, fourteen hundred dollars or more. In fact, slave traders rapidly grew rich from the traffic. One is reported as having earned thirty thousand dollars in a few months, while Franklin and Armfield, members of a firm with headquarters in Alexandria, are said to have earned more than thirty-three thousand dollars in a single year.[27]

The effect of the growing demand for labor, reflected in the high prices being offered for slaves, tended to concentrate the interest of the Virginia planter on his slaves, as it had been hitherto concentrated on tobacco.[28] Prompt and efficient methods were devised whereby Negroes were made ready for the market.[29] Olmsted was informed by a slave-holder that in the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, as much attention was paid to the breeding and growth of Negroes as had been hitherto given to the breeding of horses and mules.[30]

As to the precise number of slaves exported in response to the high prices paid for them, there seems to be no conclusive evidence. Resort must be had, therefore, to estimates of contemporaries and later writers. _The New Orleans Advertiser_ of January 21, 1830, says: "Arrivals by sea and river within a few days have added fearfully to the number of slaves brought to the market for sale. New Orleans is the complete mart for the trade--and the Mississippi is becoming a common highway for the traffic."[31] In the summer of 1831, moreover, New Orleans reported, in one week, the arrival of 381 slaves, nearly all of whom were from Virginia.[32]

Not all of the exportations of slaves were by sea as is attested by records of Sir Charles Lyell, Basil Hall, and Josiah Henson.[32a] At a later period, Featherstonhaugh tells of an overland expedition of slaves to the South. Of this coffle of slaves he says:[33] "Just as we reached New River, in the early grey of the morning, we came up with a singular spectacle, the most striking one of the kind I have ever witnessed. It was a camp of Negro slave-drivers, just packing up to start; they had about three hundred slaves with them, who had bivouacked the preceding night in chains in the woods; these they were conducting to Natchez, upon the Mississippi River, to work upon the sugar plantations in Louisiana. It resembled one of those coffles of slaves spoken of by Mungo Park, except that they had a caravan of nine waggons and single-horse carriages, for the purpose of conducting the white people, and any of the blacks that should fall lame, to which they were now putting their horses to pursue their march. The female slaves were, some of them, sitting on logs of wood, whilst others were standing, and a great many little black children were warming themselves at the fires of the bivouac. In front of them all and prepared for the march stood, in double file, about two hundred male slaves, manacled and chained to one another."

In the year 1831 there set in a reaction[34] against the importation of slaves into the Gulf States as a result of fear from troubles like Nat Turner's insurrection. Louisiana in 1831, and Alabama and Mississippi in 1832, passed laws prohibiting the importation of slaves into those States. The Alabama law was repealed in December, 1832, that of Louisiana in 1834, and that of Mississippi in 1846. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that these laws really checked importations. The fright engendered by the slave insurrection in Virginia was not sufficient to triumph over the practical demands for such labor. Collins holds that during the years from 1832 to 1836 the largest migration of Negroes to the South and the Southwest occurred.[35]

Since cotton was the prime factor in effecting the prosperity of the Southwest, and its extension of culture and advance in price dictated largely the demand for slaves, the number of slaves yearly exported may bear some relation to the price of cotton. After 1835, the price of cotton declined.[36] This, together with the panic of 1837, caused a falling-off in the domestic slave trade, except in 1843, and the low price of cotton which continued until 1846 and hindered the revival[37] of the traffic in men. In 1843, however, five thousand slaves were sold in Washington as compared with two thousand in the previous year. These increased sales were doubtless in some measure due to the decline in the price of tobacco,[38] and the renewed activity of the sugar industry, incident to a new duty on that product.[39] For the whole decade from 1840 to 1850, however, a decrease in the slave traffic is shown by the fact that the per cent of increase in the slave population in the cotton States was barely half as great as during the previous decade.[40]

Some time after 1845, however, the demand for slaves seems to have exceeded the supply. A writer in the _Richmond Examiner_ of 1849 is quoted as having said: "It being a well accustomed fact that Virginia and Maryland will not be able to supply the great demand for Negroes which will be wanted in the South this Fall and Spring, we would advise all who are compelled to dispose of them in this market to defer selling until the sales of the present crop of cotton can be realized, as the price then must be very high for two reasons: first, the ravages of the cholera; and secondly, the high price of cotton."[41]

Three important events seem to have stimulated the slave trade during this period. First, there came the admission of Texas as a State in December, 1845; second, the increase in the price of cotton from 1845; and, third, the discovery of gold in California. The first of these opened to development a vast cotton country, which could be legally supplied with slave labor only through the domestic trade. The second event, the rise in the price of cotton, gave a new impetus to the production of cotton, and the California gold rush infused new life into all avenues of trade.[42] During this period and the decade following, Collins says that because of the great demand for slaves the price of them increased one hundred per cent; yet no evidence of a large increase in the traffic is shown.[43]

TABLE NO. 1 TOTAL COTTON CROP IN BALES:[44]
1833 1,070,000
1837 1,081,000
1840 2,178,000
1843 2,379,000
1849 2,727,000

PRODUCTION OF COTTON BY STATES--(POUNDS):[45]

=====================================================
TABLE NO. 2 | | |
| 1826 | 1833 | 1834
---------------+------------+------------+-----------
Virginia | 25,000,000 | 13,000,000 | 10,000,000
North Carolina | 18,000,000 | 10,000,000 | 9,000,000
Louisiana | 38,000,000 | 55,000,000 | 62,000,000
Alabama | 45,000,000 | 65,000,000 | 85,000,000
Mississippi | 30,000,000 | 70,000,000 | 85,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------

COTTON PRODUCTION IN POUNDS:[46]

TABLE NO. 3
1839 790,479,275
1849 987,637,200

The statistics of cotton production and prices further elucidate this question. Table No. 1 shows a continuous increase in the production of cotton during the successive periods considered. Table No. 2 depicts the declining significance of Virginia and North Carolina as cotton-producing States and the shift of the lead of cotton production to the Gulf States. Table No. 3 shows the total production of cotton in the years considered and is significant, in that it emphasizes the important cotton-producing areas. During these years Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia, together, produced more than two-thirds of the total cotton crop.[47] Table No. 4 is self-explanatory, while Table No. 5 shows the yearly fluctuations of the average price of cotton after 1840.

AVERAGE PRICE A POUND OF COTTON IN FIVE-YEAR PERIODS:[48]

TABLE NO. 4
1830-1835 10.9 cents
1835-1840 14.4 cents
1840-1845 8.1 cents
1845-1850 7.3 cents

AVERAGE PRICE A POUND OF COTTON:[49]

TABLE NO. 5
1835 16.8 cents
1836 16.8 cents
1840 8.6 cents
1841 10.2 cents
1842 8.1 cents
1843 6.1 cents
1844 8.1 cents
1845 6.0 cents
1846 7.9 cents
1847 10.1 cents
1848 7.6 cents
1849 6.5 cents

In the years 1835 and 1836, the price is high relative to the later years in the two decades, and, assuming the continued demand for cotton, should have stimulated the domestic slave traffic by effecting a large demand for slaves at high prices. The lowest price is reached in 1845, followed by a rise till 1847, and then a decline in 1848 and 1849. That the demand for slaves was not at this time abated must be traceable to the fact that not more than three-fifths[50] of the slaves in the Cotton States were engaged in the production of cotton, while other occupations, notably sugar-production in Louisiana, demanded an increased quota.

The statistics of slave population are designed to show the increases of that type both in the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and in selected areas within these States. In 1850, the civil subdivisions, as counties or parishes, which possessed the greatest density of slave population in Texas, as well as in the other States named, were located in those areas of the most fertile soil for producing cotton or cane. This concentration is but an evidence of the influence of these factors in calling forth the slave migration to the Southwest.

SLAVE POPULATION IN THE GULF STATES:[51]

=========================================
TABLE NO. 6 | | |
| 1830 | 1840 | 1850
------------+---------+---------+--------
Alabama | 117,549 | 253,532 | 342,844
Louisiana | 109,588 | 168,452 | 244,809
Mississippi | 65,659 | 195,211 | 309,878
Texas | ....... | ....... | 58,161
-----------------------------------------

PER CENT. SLAVE INCREASE BY DECADES:[52]

TABLE NO. 7
1830-1840 1840-1850
Alabama 115.68 35.22
Louisiana 53.70 45.32
Mississippi 197.31 58.74
Texas ...... .....

CONCENTRATION OF MIGRATION UPON SELECTED AREAS:
ALABAMA:[53]

======================================
TABLE NO. 8| | |
Counties | 1830 | 1840 | 1850
-----------+--------+--------+-------
Barbour | ..... | 5,548 | 10,780
Chambers | ..... | 7,141 | 11,158
Dallas | 7,160 | 17,208 | 22,258
Greene | 7,420 | 16,431 | 22,127
Loundes | ..... | 12,569 | 14,649
Macon | ..... | 5,580 | 15,596
Madison | 14,091 | 13,265 | 14,326
Marengo | 2,987 | 11,902 | 20,693
Montgomery | 6,450 | 15,486 | 19,427
Perry | 4,331 | 10,343 | 13,917
Pickens | 1,630 | 7,764 | 10,534
Russell | ..... | 7,266 | 11,111
Sumter | ..... | 15,920 | 14,831
Wilcox | 4,070 | 8,292 | 11,835
-------------------------------------

CONCENTRATION OF MIGRATION UPON SELECTED AREAS (continued):
MISSISSIPPI:[54]

=====================================
TABLE NO. 9| | |
Counties | 1830 | 1840 | 1850
-----------+--------+--------+-------
Adams | 9,649 | 8,740 | 14,395
Claiborne | 6,174 | 7,743 | 11,450
Hinds | 3,197 | 13,375 | 16,625
Jefferson | 6,702 | 9,176 | 10,493
Lowndes | 1,066 | 8,771 | 12,993
Madison | 2,167 | 11,533 | 13,843
Marshall | ..... | 8,250 | 15,417
Monroe | 940 | 6,460 | 11,717
Noxubee | ..... | 7,157 | 11,323
Warren | 4,183 | 10,493 | 12,096
Wilkinson | 7,877 | 10,894 | 13,260
Yazoo | 2,470 | 7,237 | 10,349
-------------------------------------

CONCENTRATION OF MIGRATION UPON SELECTED AREAS (concluded):
LOUISIANA[56] (concluded):

======================================
TABLE NO. 10| | |
Parishes | 1830 | 1840 | 1850
------------+--------+--------+-------
Ascension | 2,813 | 4,553 | 7,266
Feliciana, E| 3,652 | 7,571 | 9,514
Feliciana, W| 6,345 | 8,755 | 10,666
Iberville | 4,509 | 5,887 | 8,606
Madison | ..... | 3,923 | 7,353
Natchitoches| 3,570 | 6,651 | 7,881
Orleans | 16,603 | 23,448 | 18,068
Point Coupee| 4,210 | 5,430 | 7,811
Rapides | 5,321 | 10,511 | 11,340
St. James | 5,027 | 5,711 | 7,751
St. Landry | 5,057 | 7,129 | 10,871
St. Mary's | 4,304 | 6,286 | 9,850
Tensas | ..... | ..... | 8,138
--------------------------------------

TEXAS:[57]

TABLE NO. 11
Counties 1850
Austin 1,549
Bowie 1,641
Brazoria 3,507
Cass 1,902
Cherokee 1,283
Fayette 1,016
Fort Bend 1,554
Grimes 1,680
Harrison 6,213
Lamar 1,085
Matagorda 1,208
Nacogdochea 1,404
Nueces 1,193
Red River 1,406
Rusk 2,136
San Augustine 1,561
Walker 1,301
Washington 2,817
Wharton 1,242

The average increase of slave population in the States considered was 103.30 per cent for the decade from 1830 to 1840, while that of the next decade was less than half so great, being 51.41 per cent.[55] These percentages, though both significant, cannot be explained wholly in terms of Negro migration. If the estimate of the increase in slave population by births over deaths be for each decade twenty-eight per cent,[58] and if from 1830 to 1840 forty thousand and from 1840 to 1850 fifty thousand foreign Negroes were imported[59] into the country as slaves, the number migrating from the more Northern States was materially smaller than at first appears to be the case. Phillips says that from 1815-1860, the volume of the slave trade by sea alone averaged from two thousand to five thousand[60] annually; but Dew, in 1832, estimated that six thousand slaves were annually exported from Virginia.[61] Collins, moreover, has made most elaborate calculations in this matter.[62] Accepting the estimate of Morse that three-fifths of the slaves who went south during the period from 1820 to 1850 migrated with their masters, Collins has deduced that the average annual export of Negroes for sale, during the decade from 1830 to 1840, was 10,600; and of the next decade, 6,000. On the basis of the principle underlying this calculation, it would follow that approximately 15,900 slaves migrated south with their masters during the earlier decade; while 9,000 went annually in this way during the decade from 1840 to 1850. Finally, if this principle of calculation be accepted, and the facts upon which it is based be well founded, approximately 26,500 Negroes found their way annually to the cotton and contiguous territory during the period from 1830 to 1840; while from 1840 to 1850 the annual number was 15,000.

What were some effects of this vast migration of Negro slaves to the Gulf States? The mere concentration of a large slave population in this region gains significance when it is considered in its numerical relation to the whites. Throughout the two decades from 1830 to 1850, there was a progressive increase in the white population here, and yet, in 1850, the whites in Alabama exceeded the slaves by less than one hundred thousand. In Louisiana the excess was 11,000; while in Mississippi the slaves were in the majority by some 14,000.[63] This situation was fraught with great possibilities. Would the slaves undertake a servile insurrection? To this dangerous aspect much thought was given, and thorough precautions were taken to protect the whites against such an upheaval. The immediate effect of this movement of the slaves to the Gulf Regions, however, was the final commitment of that section to a regime of slavery and the unification of a solid South based on interests peculiar to that section.

Although the emancipation of the blacks as a result of the Civil War has made possible the movement of not a few Negroes away from the Gulf Region, they still form a substantial portion of the population. They supply as in former days the bulk of the cotton hands. Many live in ignorance and in poverty, disfranchised and subjected to the economic exploitation of the ruling classes. They have therefore been a potent force in the creation of a social problem, the solution of which seems not yet to be found, except it appears in the present migration of these Negroes to industrial centers in the North.

A. A. TAYLOR

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hammond, _The Cotton Industry_, I, 53 (cited from _Slavery and the Internal Slave Trade_, 12).

[2] Emerson, _Geographical Influences in American Slavery_, 18 (Bulletin, Amer. Geographical Society, xliii).

[3] Collins, _The Domestic Slave Trade_, 23 (cited from Hunt's _Merchants' Magazine_, vi, 473).

[4] _Ibid._, 26.

[5] Olmsted, _Cotton Kingdom_, II; App. C, 382.

[6] _Ibid._, 89.

[7] _Ibid._, 365 (cited from the _Lynchburg Virginian_, date not given).

[8] _Ibid._

[9] _Ibid._, II, 364-5, 367, 369, 303-4; I, 11, 35. See also App. A2, _Census of 1850_.

[10] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 193.

[11] Phillips, _American Negro Slavery_, 185.

[12] De Bow's _Review_, x, 654.

[13] _Compendium, Seventh Census_, 1850, 84.

[14] Emerson, _op. cit._, 118.

[15] _Ibid._, 171.

[16] _Ibid._, 118.

[17] Phillips, _op. cit._, 173.

[18] De Bow, _op. cit._, vii, 166.

[19] Hammond, _op. cit._, I, 53.

[20] Collins, _op. cit._, 52.

[21] _Ibid._, 52.

[22] _Ibid._, 62.

[23] _Ibid._, 64, 65.

[24] Phillips, _op. cit._, 179, 180.

[25] Collins, _op. cit._, 27.

[26] Collins, _op. cit._, 28.

[27] _Ibid._ (cited from Mary Tremain, _Slavery in District of Columbia_, 50).

[28] Olmsted, _Seaboard Slave States_, I, 278-279.

[29] _Ibid._, I, 280-281.

[30] Olmsted, _Cotton Kingdom_, II, note, 58.

[31] Collins, _op. cit._, 46, 47 (from the _African Repository_, V, 381).

[32] _Ibid._, 47 (from _Niles Register_, Nov. 26, 1831).

[32a] Basil Hall, _Travels in North America_, III, 128, 129; Sir Charles Lyell, _A Second Visit to the United States_, II, 35; Henson, _Uncle Tom's Story of his Life_, 53.

[33] Featherstonhaugh (G. W.), _Travels in America_, 36.

[34] Collins, _op. cit._, 128, 130, 132-3.

[35] Collins, _op. cit._, 54, 55 (cited from Hammond, _The Cotton Industry_, App. I).

[36] De Bow's _Review_, xxiii, 475.

[37] Hammond, _op. cit._, App. I.

[38] Collins, _op. cit._, 54 (from De Bow, _Ind. Resources_, iii, 349).

[39] _Ibid._, 54 (De Bow, _Ind. Resources_, iii, 275).

[40] De Bow's _Review_, xxiii, 477.

[41] _Richmond Examiner_, 1849.

[42] Collins, _op. cit._, 54, 55 (from Hammond, _Cotton Industry_, App. I).

[43] _Ibid._, 56. (_Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin_, 149; De Bow's _Review_, xxvi, 649).

[44] _Compendium, Seventh Census_, 1850, 191.

[45] De Bow's _Review_, xxiii, 477.

[46] Collins, _op. cit._, 32 (_Statistics of Agr., 42, Census of 1890_).

[47] _Compendium, Seventh Census_, 1850, 191.

[48] _Ibid._, 191.

[49] Collins, _op. cit._, 32.

[50] De Bow's _Review_, xxiii, 477.

[51] _Compendium, Seventh Census_, 1850, 191, 84.

[52] De Bow's _Review_, xxiii, 477.

[53] _Census of 1830_, 98-101; _Census of 1840, Compendium_, 54; _Census of 1850_, 421.

[54] _Census of 1830_, 102-3; _Census of 1840, Compendium_; _Census of 1850_, 497.

[55] De Bow's _Review_, xxiii, 476.

[56] _Census of 1830_, 104-107; _Census of 1840, Compendium_; _Census of 1850_, 473.

[57] _Census of 1850_, 503-4.

[58] _Ibid._, 476.

[59] Collins, _op. cit._, 64, 65.

[60] Phillips, _op. cit._, 195.

[61] Hammond, _op. cit._, I, 53 (from Dew in the _Pro-Slavery Argument_, 399).

[62] Collins, _op. cit._, 64, 65.

[63] _Compendium, Seventh Census_, 1850, 63.

NEGROES IN DOMESTIC SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES[A]