EDUCATION AS A RIGHT OF MAN
In addition to the mere diffusion of knowledge as a means to teach
religion there was a need of another factor to make the education of
the Negroes thorough. This required force was supplied by the response
of the colonists to the nascent social doctrine of the eighteenth
century. During the French and Indian War there were set to work
certain forces which hastened the social and political upheaval called
the American Revolution. "Bigoted saints" of the more highly favored
sects condescended to grant the rising denominations toleration,
the aristocratic elements of colonial society deigned to look more
favorably upon those of lower estate, and a large number of leaders
began to think that the Negro should be educated and freed. To
acquaint themselves with the claims of the underman Americans
thereafter prosecuted more seriously the study of Coke, Milton, Locke,
and Blackstone. The last of these was then read more extensively in
the colonies than in Great Britain. Getting from these writers strange
ideas of individual liberty and the social compact theory of man's
making in a state of nature government deriving its power from the
consent of the governed, the colonists contended more boldly than ever
for religious freedom, industrial liberty, and political equality.
Given impetus by the diffusion of these ideas, the revolutionary
movement became productive of the spirit of universal benevolence.
Hearing the contention for natural and inalienable rights, Nathaniel
Appleton[1] and John Woolman,[2] were emboldened to carry these
theories to their logical conclusion. They attacked not only the
oppressors of the colonists but censured also those who denied the
Negro race freedom of body and freedom of mind. When John Adams heard
James Otis basing his argument against the writs of assistance on the
British constitution "founded in the laws of nature," he "shuddered at
the doctrine taught and the consequences that might be derived from
such premises."[3]
[Footnote 1: Locke, _Anti-slavery_, etc., p. 19, 20, 23.]
[Footnote 2: _Works of John Woolman_ in two parts, pp. 58 and 73;
Moore, _Notes on Slavery in Mass._, p. 71.]
[Footnote 3: Adams, _Works of John Adams_, vol. x., p. 315; Moore,
_Notes on Slavery in Mass._, p. 71.]
So effective was the attack on the institution of slavery and its
attendant evils that interest in the question leaped the boundaries
of religious organizations and became the concern of fair-minded men
throughout the country. Not only did Northern men of the type of John
Adams and James Otis express their opposition to this tyranny of men's
bodies and minds, but Laurens, Henry, Wythe, Mason, and Washington
pointed out the injustice of such a policy. Accordingly we find
arrayed against the aristocratic masters almost all the leaders of the
American Revolution.[1] They favored the policy, first, of suppressing
the slave trade, next of emancipating the Negroes in bondage, and
finally of educating them for a life of freedom.[2] While students of
government were exposing the inconsistency of slaveholding among a
people contending for political liberty, and men like Samuel Webster,
James Swan, and Samuel Hopkins attacked the institution on economic
grounds;[3] Jonathan Boucher,[4] Dr. Rush,[5] and Benjamin Franklin[6]
were devising plans to educate slaves for freedom; and Isaac Tatem[7]
and Anthony Benezet[8] were actually in the schoolroom endeavoring to
enlighten their black brethren.
[Footnote 1: Cobb, _Slavery_, etc., p. 82.]
[Footnote 2: Madison, _Works of_, vol. iii., p. 496; Smyth, _Works of
Franklin_, vol. v., p. 431; Washington, _Works of Jefferson_, vol.
ix., p. 163; Brissot de Warville, _New Travels_, vol. i., p. 227;
Proceedings of the American Convention of Abolition Societies, 1794,
1795, 1797.]
[Footnote 3: Webster, _A Sermon Preached before the Honorable
Council_, etc.; Webster, _Earnest Address to My Country on Slavery_;
Swan, _A Dissuasion to Great Britain and the Colonies_; Hopkins,
_Dialogue Concerning Slavery_.]
[Footnote 4: Boucher, _A View of the Causes and Consequences of the
American Revolution_, p. 39.]
[Footnote 5: Rush, _An Address to the Inhabitants of_, etc., p. 16.]
[Footnote 6: Smyth, _Works of Franklin_, vol. iv., p. 23; vol. v., p.
431.]
[Footnote 7: Wickersham, _History of Ed. in Pa_., p. 249.]
[Footnote 8: _Ibid_., p. 250; _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of
Ed_., 1869, p. 375; _African Repository_, vol. iv., p. 61; Benezet,
_Observations_; Benezet, _A Serious Address to the Rulers of
America_.]
The aim of these workers was not merely to enable the Negroes to take
over sufficient of Western civilization to become nominal Christians,
not primarily to increase their economic efficiency, but to enlighten
them because they are men. To strengthen their position these
defendants of the education of the blacks cited the customs of the
Greeks and Romans, who enslaved not the minds and wills, but only the
bodies of men. Nor did these benefactors fail to mention the cases of
ancient slaves, who, having the advantages of education, became poets,
teachers, and philosophers, instrumental in the diffusion of knowledge
among the higher classes. There was still the idea of Cotton Mather,
who was willing to treat his servants as part of the family, and to
employ such of them as were competent to teach his children lessons of
piety.[1]
[Footnote 1: Meade, _Sermons of Thomas Bacon_, appendix.]
The chief objection of these reformers to slavery was that its victims
had no opportunity for mental improvement. "Othello," a free person
of color, contributing to the _American Museum_ in 1788, made the
institution responsible for the intellectual rudeness of the Negroes
who, though "naturally possessed of strong sagacity and lively parts,"
were by law and custom prohibited from being instructed in any kind
of learning.[1] He styled this policy an effort to bolster up an
institution that extinguished the "divine spark of the slave, crushed
the bud of his genius, and kept him unacquainted with the world." Dr.
McLeod denounced slavery because it "debases a part of the human race"
and tends "to destroy their intellectual powers."[2] "The slave from
his infancy," continued he, "is obliged implicitly to obey the will of
another. There is no circumstance which can stimulate him to exercise
his intellectual powers." In his arraignment of this system Rev. David
Rice complained that it was in the power of the master to deprive
the slaves of all education, that they had not the opportunity for
instructing conversation, that it was put out of their power to
learn to read, and that their masters kept them from other means of
information.[3] Slavery, therefore, must be abolished because it
infringes upon the natural right of men to be enlightened.
[Footnote 1: _The American Museum_, vol. iv., pp. 415 and 511.]
[Footnote 2: McLeod, _Negro Slavery_, p. 16.]
[Footnote 3: Rice, Speech in the Constitutional Convention of
Kentucky, p. 5.]
During this period religion as a factor in the educational progress of
the Negroes was not eliminated. In fact, representative churchmen of
the various sects still took the lead in advocating the enlightenment
of the colored people. These protagonists, however, ceased to claim
this boon merely as a divine right and demanded it as a social
privilege. Some of the clergy then interested had not at first
seriously objected to the enslavement of the African race, believing
that the lot of these people would not be worse in this country where
they might have an opportunity for enlightenment. But when this result
failed to follow, and when the slavery of the Africans' bodies turned
out to be the slavery of their minds, the philanthropic and religious
proclaimed also the doctrine of enlightenment as a right of man.
Desiring to see Negroes enjoy this privilege, Jonathan Boucher,[1] one
of the most influential of the colonial clergymen, urged his hearers
at the celebration of the Peace of 1763 to improve and emancipate
their slaves that they might "participate in the general joy."
With the hope of inducing men to discharge the same duty, Bishop
Warburton[2] boldly asserted a few years later that slaves are
"rational creatures endowed with all our qualities except that of
color, and our brethren both by nature and grace." John Woolman,[3] a
Quaker minister, influenced by the philosophy of John Locke, began to
preach that liberty is the right of all men, and that slaves, being
the fellow-creatures of their masters, had a natural right to be
elevated.
[Footnote 1: Jonathan Boucher was a rector of the Established Church
in Maryland. Though not a promoter of the movement for the political
rights of the colonists, Boucher was, however, so moved by the spirit
of uplift of the downtrodden that he takes front rank among those who,
in emphasizing the rights of servants, caused a decided change in the
attitude of white men toward the improvement of Negroes. Boucher was
not an immediate abolitionist. He abhorred slavery, however, to the
extent that he asserted that if ever the colonies would be improved to
their utmost capacity, an essential part of that amelioration had
to be the abolition of slavery. His chief concern then was the
cultivation of the minds in order to make amends for the drudgery to
their bodies. See Boucher, _Causes_, etc., p. 39.]
[Footnote 2: _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of Ed_., 1871, p. 363.]
[Footnote 3: An influential minister of the Society of Friends and an
extensive traveler through the colonies, Woolman had an opportunity to
do much good in attacking the policy of those who kept their Negroes
in deplorable ignorance, and in commending the good example of those
who instructed their slaves in reading. In his _Considerations on the
Keeping of Slaves_ he took occasion to praise the Friends of North
Carolina for the unusual interest they manifested in the cause at
their meetings during his travels in that colony about the year 1760.
With such workers as Woolman in the field it is little wonder that
Quakers thereafter treated slaves as brethren, alleviated their
burdens, enlightened their minds, emancipated and cared for them until
they could provide for themselves. See _Works of John Woolman_ in two
parts, pp. 58 and 73.]
Thus following the theories of the revolutionary leaders these
liberal-minded men promulgated along with the doctrine of individual
liberty that of the freedom of the mind. The best expression of this
advanced idea came from the Methodist Episcopal Church, which reached
the acme of antislavery sentiment in 1784. This sect then boldly
declared: "We view it as contrary to the golden law of God and the
prophets, and the inalienable rights of mankind as well as every
principle of the Revolution to hold in deepest abasement, in a more
abject slavery than is perhaps to be found in any part of the world,
except America, so many souls that are capable of the image of
God."[1]
[Footnote 1: Matlack, _History of American Slavery and Methodism_, pp.
29 _et seq_.; McTyeire, _History of Methodism_, p. 28.]
Frequently in contact with men who were advocating the right of the
Negroes to be educated, statesmen as well as churchmen could not
easily evade the question. Washington did not have much to say about
it and did little more than to provide for the ultimate liberation of
his slaves and the teaching of their children to read.[1] Less aid to
this movement came from John Adams, although he detested slavery to
the extent that he never owned a bondman, preferring to hire freemen
at extra cost to do his work.[2] Adams made it clear that he favored
gradual emancipation. But he neither delivered any inflammatory
speeches against slaveholders neglectful of the instruction of their
slaves, nor devised any scheme for their enjoyment of freedom. So was
it with Hamilton who, as an advocate of the natural rights of man,
opposed the institution of slavery, but, with the exception of what
assistance he gave the New York African Free Schools[3] said and did
little to promote the actual education of the colored people.
[Footnote 1: Lossing, _Life of George Washington_, vol. iii., p. 537.]
[Footnote 2: Adams, _Works of John Adams_, vol. viii., p. 379; vol.
ix., p. 92; vol. x., p. 380.]
[Footnote 3: Andrews, _History of the New York African Free Schools_,
p. 57.]
Madison in stating his position on this question was a little more
definite than some of his contemporaries. Speaking of the necessary
preparation of the colored people for emancipation he thought it was
possible to determine the proper course of instruction. He believed,
however, that, since the Negroes were to continue in a state
of bondage during the preparatory period and to be within the
jurisdiction of commonwealths recognizing ample authority over them,
"a competent discipline" could not be impracticable. He said further
that the "degree in which this discipline" would "enforce the needed
labor and in which a voluntary industry" would "supply the defect of
compulsory labor, were vital points on which it" might "not be safe
to be very positive without some light from actual experiment."[1]
Evidently he was of the opinion that the training of slaves to
discharge later the duties of freemen was a difficult task but, if
well planned and directed, could be made a success.
[Footnote 1: Madison, _Works of_, vol. iii., p. 496.]
No one of the great statesmen of this time was more interested in the
enlightenment of the Negro than Benjamin Franklin.[1] He was for a
long time associated with the friends of the colored people and turned
out from his press such fiery anti-slavery pamphlets as those of Lay
and Sandiford. Franklin also became one of the "Associates of Dr.
Bray." Always interested in the colored schools of Philadelphia,
the philosopher was, while in London, connected with the English
"gentlemen concerned with the pious design,"[2] serving as chairman of
the organization for the year 1760. He was a firm supporter of Anthony
Benezet,[3] and was made president of the Abolition Society of
Philadelphia which in 1774 founded a successful colored school.[4]
This school was so well planned and maintained that it continued about
a hundred years.
[Footnote 1: Smyth, _Works of Benjamin Franklin_, vol. v., p. 431.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., vol. iv., p. 23.]
[Footnote 3: Smyth, _Works of Benjamin Franklin_, vol. v., p. 431.]
[Footnote 4: _Ibid_., vol. x., p. 127; and Wickersham, _History of
Education in Pennsylvania_, p. 253.]
John Jay kept up his interest in the Negro race.[1] In the Convention
of 1787 he coöperated with Gouverneur Morris, advocating the abolition
of the slave trade and the rejection of the Federal ratio. His efforts
in behalf of the colored people were actuated by his early conviction
that the national character of this country could be retrieved only
by abolishing the iniquitous traffic in human souls and improving
the Negroes.[2] Showing his pity for the downtrodden people of color
around him, Jay helped to promote the cause of the abolitionists of
New York who established and supported several colored schools in
that city. Such care was exercised in providing for the attendance,
maintenance, and supervision of these schools that they soon took rank
among the best in the United States.
[Footnote 1: Jay, _Works of John Jay_, vol. i., p. 136; vol. iii, p.
331.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., vol. iii., p. 343.]
More interesting than the views of any other man of this epoch on the
subject of Negro education were those of Thomas Jefferson. Born of
pioneer parentage in the mountains of Virginia, Jefferson never
lost his frontier democratic ideals which made him an advocate of
simplicity, equality, and universal freedom. Having in mind when he
wrote the Declaration of Independence the rights of the blacks as well
as those of whites, this disciple of John Locke, could not but feel
that the slaves of his day had a natural right to education and
freedom. Jefferson said so much more on these important questions than
his contemporaries that he would have been considered an abolitionist,
had he lived in 1840.
Giving his views on the enlightenment of the Negroes he asserted
that the minds of the masters should be "apprized by reflection and
strengthened by the energies of conscience against the obstacles of
self-interest to an acquiescence in the rights of others." The owners
would then permit their slaves to be "prepared by instruction and
habit" for self-government, the honest pursuit of industry, and social
duty.[1] In his scheme for a modern system of public schools Jefferson
included the training of the slaves in industrial and agricultural
branches to equip them for a higher station in life, else he thought
they should be removed from the country when liberated.[2] Capable of
mental development, as he had found certain men of color to be, the
Sage of Monticello doubted at times that they could be made the
intellectual equals of white men,[3] and did not actually advocate
their incorporation into the body politic.
[Footnote 1: Washington, _Works of Jefferson_, vol. vi., p. 456.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., vol. viii., p. 380; and Mayo, _Educational
Movement in the South_, p. 37.]
[Footnote 3: As to what Jefferson thought of the Negro intellect
we are still in doubt. Writing in 1791 to Banneker, the Negro
mathematician and astronomer, he said that nobody wished to see more
than he such proofs as Banneker exhibited that nature has given to our
black brethren talents equal to those of men of other colors, and that
the appearance of a lack of such native ability was owing only to
their degraded condition in Africa and America. Jefferson expressed
himself as being ardently desirous of seeing a good system commenced
for raising the condition both of the body and the mind of the slaves
to what it ought to be as fast as the "imbecility" of their then
existence and other circumstances, which could not be neglected, would
admit. Replying to Grégoire of Paris, who wrote an interesting essay
on the _Literature of Negroes_, showing the power of their intellect,
Jefferson assured him that no person living wished more sincerely
than he to see a complete refutation of the doubts he himself had
entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to
them by nature and to find that in this respect they are on a par
with white men. These doubts, he said, were the result of personal
observations in the limited sphere of his own State where "the
opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable,
and those of exercising it still less so." He said that he had
expressed them with great hesitation; but "whatever be the degree of
their talent, it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac
Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore
lord of the person or property of others." In this respect he believed
they were gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful
advances were being made toward their reëstablishment on an equal
footing with other colors of the human family. He prayed, therefore,
that God might accept his thanks for enabling him to observe the "many
instances of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which could
not fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief." Yet
a few days later when writing to Joel Barlow, Jefferson referred to
Bishop Grégoire's essay and expressed his doubt that this pamphlet was
weighty evidence of the intellect of the Negro. He said that the whole
did not amount in point of evidence to what they themselves knew of
Banneker. He conceded that Banneker had spherical knowledge enough to
make almanacs, but not without the suspicion of aid from Ellicott
who was his neighbor and friend, and never missed an opportunity of
puffing him. Referring to the letter he received from Banneker, he
said it showed the writer to have a mind of very common stature
indeed. See Washington, _Works of Jefferson_, vol. v., pp. 429 and
503.]
So much progress in the improvement of slaves was effected with all of
these workers in the field that conservative southerners in the midst
of the antislavery agitation contented themselves with the thought
that radical action was not necessary, as the institution would
of itself soon pass away. Legislatures passed laws facilitating
manumission,[1] many southerners emancipated their slaves to give them
a better chance to improve their condition, regulations unfavorable to
the assembly of Negroes for the dissemination of information almost
fell into desuetude, a larger number of masters began to instruct
their bondmen, and persons especially interested in these unfortunates
found the objects of their piety more accessible.[2]
[Footnote 1: _Locke, Anti-slavery_, etc., p. 14.]
[Footnote 2: Brissot de Warville, _New Travels_, vol. i., p. 220;
Johann Schoepf, _Travels in the Confederation_, p. 149.]
Not all slaveholders, however, were thus induced to respect this new
right claimed for the colored people. Georgia and South Carolina
were exceptional in that they were not sufficiently stirred by the
revolutionary movement to have much compassion for this degraded
class. The attitude of the people of Georgia, however, was then more
favorable than that of the South Carolinians.[1] Nevertheless, the
Georgia planters near the frontier were not long in learning that the
general enlightenment of the Negroes would endanger the institution of
slavery. Accordingly, in 1770, at the very time when radical reformers
were clamoring for the rights of man, Georgia, following in the wake
of South Carolina, reënacted its act of 1740 which imposed a penalty
on any one who should teach or cause slaves to be taught or employ
them "in any manner of writing whatever."[2] The penalty, however,
was less than that imposed in South Carolina.[3] The same measure
terminated the helpful mingling of slaves by providing for their
dispersion when assembled for the old-time "love feast" emphasized so
much among the rising Methodists of the South.
[Footnote 1: The laws of Georgia were not so harsh as those of South
Carolina. A larger number of intelligent persons of color were
found in the rural districts of Georgia. Charleston, however, was
exceptional in that its Negroes had unusual educational advantages.]
[Footnote 2: Marbury and Crawford, _Digest of the Laws of the State of
Georgia_, p. 438.]
[Footnote 3: Brevard, _Digest of the Public Statutes of South
Carolina_, vol. ii., p. 243.]
Those advocating the imposition of restraints upon Negroes acquiring
knowledge were not, however, confined to South Carolina and Georgia
where the malevolent happened to be in the majority. The other States
had not seen the last of the generation of those who doubted that
education would fit the slaves for the exalted position of citizens.
The retrogressives made much of the assertion that adult slaves lately
imported, were, on account of their attachment to heathen practices
and idolatrous rites, loath to take over the Teutonic civilization,
and would at best learn to speak the English language imperfectly
only.[1] The reformers, who at times admitted this, maintained that
the alleged difficulties encountered in teaching the crudest element
of the slaves could not be adduced as an argument against the
religious instruction of free Negroes and the education of the
American born colored children.[2] This problem, however, was not a
serious one in most Northern States, for the reason that the small
number of slaves in that section obviated the necessity for much
apprehension as to what kind of education the blacks should have,
and whether they should be enlightened before or after emancipation.
Although the Northern people believed that the education of the race
should be definitely planned, and had much to say about industrial
education, most of them were of the opinion that ordinary training
in the fundamentals of useful knowledge and in the principles of
Christian religion, was sufficient to meet the needs of those
designated for freedom.
[Footnote 1: Meade, _Sermons of Thomas Bacon_, pp. 81-87.]
[Footnote 2: Porteus, _Works of_, vol. vi., p. 177; Warburton, _A
Sermon_, etc., pp. 25 and 27.]
On the other hand, most southerners who conceded the right of the
Negro to be educated did not openly aid the movement except with the
understanding that the enlightened ones should be taken from their
fellows and colonized in some remote part of the United States or
in their native land.[1] The idea of colonization, however, was not
confined to the southern slaveholders, for Thornton, Fothergill, and
Granville Sharp had long looked to Africa as the proper place for
enlightened people of color.[2] Feeling that it would be wrong to
expatriate them, Benezet and Branagan[3] advocated the colonization of
such Negroes on the public lands west of the Alleghanies. There was
some talk of giving slaves training in the elements of agriculture
and then dividing plantations among them to develop a small class of
tenants. Jefferson, a member of a committee appointed in 1779 by the
General Assembly of that commonwealth to revise its laws, reported a
plan providing for the instruction of its slaves in agriculture and
the handicrafts to prepare them for liberation and colonization under
the supervision of the home government until they could take care of
themselves.[4]
[Footnote 1: _Writings of James Monroe_, vol. iii., pp. 261, 266, 292,
295, 321, 322, 336, 338, 349, 351, 352, 353, 378.]
[Footnote 2: Brissot de Warville, _Travels_, vol. i., p. 262.]
[Footnote 3: _Tyrannical Libertymen_, pp. 10-11; Locke,
_Anti-slavery_, etc., pp. 31-32; Branagan, _Serious Remonstrance_, p.
18.]
[Footnote 4: Washington, _Works of Jefferson_, vol. iii., p. 296; vol.
iv., p. 291 and vol. viii., p. 380.]
Without resorting to the subterfuge of colonization, not a few
slaveholders were still wise enough to show why the improvement of the
Negroes should be neglected altogether. Vanquished by the logic of
Daniel Davis[1] and Benjamin Rush,[2] those who had theretofore
justified slavery on the ground that it gave the bondmen a chance to
be enlightened, fell back on the theory of African racial inferiority.
This they said was so well exhibited by the Negroes' lack of
wisdom and of goodness that continued heathenism of the race was
justifiable.[3] Answering these inconsistent persons, John Wesley
inquired: "Allowing them to be as stupid as you say, to whom is that
stupidity owing? Without doubt it lies altogether at the door of the
inhuman masters who give them no opportunity for improving their
understanding and indeed leave them no motive, either from hope or
fear to attempt any such thing." Wesley asserted, too, that the
Africans were in no way remarkable for their stupidity while they
remained in their own country, and that where they had equal motives
and equal means of improvement, the Negroes were not only not inferior
to the better inhabitants of Europe, but superior to some of them.[4]
[Footnote 1: Davis was a logical antislavery agitator. He believed
that if the slaves had had the means of education, if they had been
treated with humanity, making slaves of them had been no more than
doing evil that good might come. He thought that Christianity and
humanity would have rather dictated the sending of books and teachers
into Africa and endeavors for their salvation.]
[Footnote 2: Benjamin Rush was a Philadelphia physician of Quaker
parentage. He was educated at the College of New Jersey and at the
Medical School of Edinburgh, where he came into contact with some of
the most enlightened men of his time. Holding to the ideals of his
youth, Dr. Rush was soon associated with the friends of the Negroes on
his return to Philadelphia. He not only worked for the abolition of
the slave trade but fearlessly advocated the right of the Negroes
to be educated. He pointed out that an inquiry into the methods of
converting Negroes to Christianity would show that the means were
ill suited to the end proposed. "In many cases," said he, "Sunday
is appropriated to work for themselves. Reading and writing are
discouraged among them. A belief is inculcated among some that they
have no souls. In a word, every attempt to instruct or convert them
has been constantly opposed by their masters." See Rush, _An Address
to the Inhabitants_, etc., p. 16.]
[Footnote 3: Meade, _Sermons of Rev. Thomas Bacon_, pp. 81-97.]
[Footnote 4: Wesley, _Thoughts upon Slavery_, p. 92.]
William Pinkney, the antislavery leader of Maryland, believed also
that Negroes are no worse than white people under similar conditions,
and that all the colored people needed to disprove their so-called
inferiority was an equal chance with the more favored race.[1] Others
like George Buchanan referred to the Negroes' talent for the fine arts
and to their achievements in literature, mathematics, and philosophy.
Buchanan informed these merciless aristocrats "that the Africans
whom you despise, whom you inhumanly treat as brutes and whom you
unlawfully subject to slavery with tyrannizing hands of despots are
equally capable of improvement with yourselves."[2]
[Footnote 1: Pinkney, _Speech in Maryland House of Delegates_, p. 6.]
[Footnote 2: Buchanan, _An Oration on the Moral and Political Evil of
Slavery_, p. 10.]
Franklin considered the idea of the natural inferiority of the
Negro as a silly excuse. He conceded that most of the blacks were
improvident and poor, but believed that their condition was not due to
deficient understanding but to their lack of education. He was very
much impressed with their achievements in music.[1] So disgusting was
this notion of inferiority to Abbé Grégoire of Paris that he wrote an
interesting essay on "Negro Literature" to prove that people of color
have unusual intellectual power.[2] He sent copies of this pamphlet
to leading men where slavery existed. Another writer discussing
Jefferson's equivocal position on this question said that one would
have thought that "modern philosophy himself" would not have the face
to expect that the wretch, who is driven out to labor at the dawn of
day, and who toils until evening with a whip over his head, ought to
be a poet. Benezet, who had actually taught Negroes, declared "with
truth and sincerity" that he had found among them as great variety of
talents as among a like number of white persons. He boldly asserted
that the notion entertained by some that the blacks were inferior
in their capacities was a vulgar prejudice founded on the pride or
ignorance of their lordly masters who had kept their slaves at such a
distance as to be unable to form a right judgment of them.[3]
[Footnote 1: Smyth, _Works of Franklin_, vol. vi., p. 222.]
[Footnote 2: Grégoire, _La Littérature des Nègres_.]
[Footnote 3: _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of Ed._, 1871, p. 375.]