THE REACTION
Encouraging as had been the movement to enlighten the Negroes, there
had always been at work certain reactionary forces which impeded the
intellectual progress of the colored people. The effort to enlighten
them that they might be emancipated to enjoy the political rights
given white men, failed to meet with success in those sections where
slaves were found in large numbers. Feeling that the body politic, as
conceived by Locke and Montesquieu, did not include the slaves, many
citizens opposed their education on the ground that their mental
improvement was inconsistent with their position as persons held to
service. For this reason there was never put forward any systematic
effort to elevate the slaves. Every master believed that he had a
divine right to deal with the situation as he chose. Moreover, even
before the policy of mental and moral improvement of the slaves could
be given a trial, some colonists, anticipating the "evils of the
scheme," sought to obviate them by legislation. Such we have observed
was the case in Virginia,[1] South Carolina,[2] and Georgia.[3] To
control the assemblies of slaves, North Carolina,[4] Delaware,[5] and
Maryland[6] early passed strict regulations for their inspection.
[Footnote 1: _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of Ed._, 1871, p. 391.]
[Footnote 2: Brevard, _Digest of the Public Statute Law of S.C._, vol.
ii., p.243.]
[Footnote 3: Marbury and Crawford, _Digest of Laws of the State of
Georgia_, p. 438.]
[Footnote 4: _Laws of North Carolina_, vol. i., pp. 126, 563, and
741.]
[Footnote 5: _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of Ed._, 1871, p. 335.]
[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, p. 352.]
The actual opposition of the masters to the mental improvement of
Negroes, however, did not assume sufficiently large proportions to
prevent the intellectual progress of that race, until two forces then
at work had had time to become effective in arousing southern planters
to the realization of what a danger enlightened colored men would
be to the institution of slavery. These forces were the industrial
revolution and the development of an insurrectionary spirit among
slaves, accelerated by the rapid spreading of the abolition agitation.
The industrial revolution was effected by the multiplication of
mechanical appliances for spinning and weaving which so influenced the
institution of slavery as seemingly to doom the Negroes to heathenism.
These inventions were the spinning jenny, the steam engine, the power
loom, the wool-combing machine, and the cotton gin. They augmented
the output of spinning mills, and in cheapening cloth, increased the
demand by bringing it within the reach of the poor. The result was
that a revolution was brought about not only in Europe, but also in
the United States to which the world looked for this larger supply of
cotton fiber.[1] This demand led to the extension of the plantation
system on a larger scale. It was unfortunate, however, that many of
the planters thus enriched, believed that the slightest amount of
education, merely teaching slaves to read, impaired their value
because it instantly destroyed their contentedness. Since they did not
contemplate changing their condition, it was surely doing them an ill
service to destroy their acquiescence in it. This revolution then had
brought it to pass that slaves who were, during the eighteenth century
advertised as valuable on account of having been enlightened, were in
the nineteenth century considered more dangerous than useful.
[Footnote 1: Turner, _The Rise of the New West_, pp. 45, 46, 47, 48,
and 49; and Hammond, _Cotton Industry_, chaps. i. and ii.]
With the rise of this system, and the attendant increased importation
of slaves, came the end of the helpful contact of servants with their
masters. Slavery was thereby changed from a patriarchal to an economic
institution. Thereafter most owners of extensive estates abandoned the
idea that the mental improvement of slaves made them better servants.
Doomed then to be half-fed, poorly clad, and driven to death in this
cotton kingdom, what need had the slaves for education? Some planters
hit upon the seemingly more profitable scheme of working newly
imported slaves to death during seven years and buying another supply
rather than attempt to humanize them.[1] Deprived thus of helpful
advice and instruction, the slaves became the object of pity not only
to abolitionists of the North but also to some southerners. Not a
few of these reformers, therefore, favored the extermination of the
institution. Others advocated the expansion of slavery not to extend
the influence of the South, but to disperse the slaves with a view to
bringing about a closer contact between them and their masters.[2]
This policy was duly emphasized during the debate on the admission of
the State of Missouri.
[Footnote 1: Rhodes, _History of the United States_, vol. i., p. 32;
Kemble, Journal, p. 28; Martineau, _Society in America_, vol. i., p.
308; Weld, _Slavery_, etc., p. 41.]
[Footnote 2: Annals of Congress, First Session, vol. i., pp. 996 _et
seq._ and 1296 _et seq._]
Seeking to direct the attention of the world to the slavery of men's
bodies and minds the abolitionists spread broadcast through the South
newspapers, tracts, and pamphlets which, whether or not they had much
effect in inducing masters to improve the condition of their slaves,
certainly moved Negroes themselves. It hardly required enlightenment
to convince slaves that they would be better off as freemen than as
dependents whose very wills were subject to those of their masters.
Accordingly even in the seventeenth century there developed in the
minds of bondmen the spirit of resistance. The white settlers of the
colonies held out successfully in putting down the early riots of
Negroes. When the increasing intelligent Negroes of the South,
however, observed in the abolition literature how the condition of the
American slaves differed from that of the ancient servants and even
from what it once had been in the United States; when they fully
realized their intolerable condition compared with that of white men,
who were clamoring for liberty and equality, there rankled in the
bosom of slaves that insurrectionary passion productive of the daring
uprisings which made the chances for the enlightenment of colored
people poorer than they had ever been in the history of this country.
The more alarming insurrections of the first quarter of the nineteenth
century were the immediate cause of the most reactionary measures.
It was easily observed that these movements were due to the mental
improvement of the colored people during the struggle for the rights
of man. Not only had Negroes heard from the lips of their masters
warm words of praise for the leaders of the French Revolution but had
developed sufficient intelligence themselves to read the story of the
heroes of the world, who were then emboldened to refresh the tree
of liberty "with the blood of patriots and tyrants."[1] The
insurrectionary passion among the colored people was kindled, too,
around Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, and New Orleans by certain
Negroes who to escape the horrors of the political upheaval in Santo
Domingo,[2] immigrated into this country in 1793. The education of the
colored race had paved the way for the dissemination of their ideas of
liberty and equality. Enlightened bondmen persistently made trouble
for the white people in these vicinities. Negroes who could not read,
learned from others the story of Toussaint L'Ouverture, whose example
colored men were then ambitious to emulate.
[Footnote 1: Washington, _Works of Jefferson_, vol. iv., p. 467.]
[Footnote 2: Drewery, _Insurrections in Virginia_, p. 121.]
The insurrection of Gabriel in Virginia and that of South Carolina in
the year 1800 are cases in evidence. Unwilling to concede that slaves
could have so well planned such a daring attack, the press of the
time insisted that two Frenchmen were the promoters of the affair in
Virginia.[1] James Monroe said there was no evidence that any white
man was connected with it.[2] It was believed that the general
tendency of the Negroes toward an uprising had resulted from French
ideas which had come to the slaves through intelligent colored men.[3]
Observing that many Negroes were sufficiently enlightened to see
things as other men, the editor of the _Aurora_ asserted that in
negotiating with the "Black Republic" the United States and Great
Britain had set the seal of approval upon servile insurrection.[4]
Others referred to inflammatory handbills which Negroes extensively
read.[5] Discussing the Gabriel plot in 1800, Judge St. George Tucker
said: "Our sole security then consists in their ignorance of this
power (doing us mischief) and their means of using it--a security
which we have lately found is not to be relied on, and which, small as
it is, every day diminishes. Every year adds to the number of those
who can read and write; and the increase in knowledge is the principal
agent in evolving the spirit we have to fear."[6]
[Footnote 1: _The New York Daily Advertiser_, Sept. 22, 1800; and _The
Richmond Enquirer_, Oct. 21, 1831.]
[Footnote 2: _Writings of James Monroe_, vol. iii., p. 217.]
[Footnote 3: Educated Negroes then constituted an alarming element in
Massachusetts, Virginia, and South Carolina. See _The New York Daily
Advertiser_, Sept. 22, 1800.]
[Footnote 4: See _The New York Daily Advertiser_, Sept. 22, 1800.]
[Footnote 5: _Ibid._, Oct. 7, 1800.]
[Footnote 6: Letter of St. George Tucker in Joshua Coffin's _Slave
Insurrections._]
Camden was disturbed by an insurrection in 1816 and Charleston in
1822 by a formidable plot which the officials believed was due to the
"sinister" influences of enlightened Negroes.[1] The moving spirit of
this organization was Denmark Vesey. He had learned to read and write,
had accumulated an estate worth $8000, and had purchased his freedom
in 1800[2] Jack Purcell, an accomplice of Vesey, weakened in the
crisis and confessed. He said that Vesey was in the habit of reading
to him all the passages in the newspapers, that related to Santo
Domingo and apparently every accessible pamphlet that had any
connection with slavery.[3] One day he read to Purcell the speeches of
Mr. King on the subject of slavery and told Purcell how this friend of
the Negro race declared he would continue to speak, write, and publish
pamphlets against slavery "the longest day he lived," until the
Southern States consented to emancipate their slaves.[4]
[Footnote 1: _The City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser_
(Charleston, South Carolina), August 21, 1822.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, August 21, 1822.]
[Footnote 3: _The City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser_,
August 21, 1822.]
[Footnote 4: _Ibid_., August 21, 1822.]
The statement of the Governor of South Carolina also shows the
influence of the educated Negro. This official felt that Monday, the
slave of Mr. Gill, was the most daring conspirator. Being able to read
and write he "attained an extraordinary and dangerous influence over
his fellows." "Permitted by his owner to occupy a house in the central
part of this city, he was afforded hourly opportunities for the
exercise of his skill on those who were attracted to his shop by
business or favor." "Materials were abundantly furnished in the
seditious pamphlets brought into the State by equally culpable
incendiaries, while the speeches of the oppositionists in Congress to
the admission of Missouri gave a serious and imposing effect to his
machinations."[1] It was thus brought home to the South that the
enlightened Negro was having his heart fired with the spirit of
liberty by his perusal of the accounts of servile insurrections and
the congressional debate on slavery.
[Footnote 1: _The Norfolk and Portsmouth Herald_, Aug. 30, 1822.]
Southerners of all types thereafter attacked the policy of educating
Negroes.[1] Men who had expressed themselves neither one way nor the
other changed their attitude when it became evident that abolition
literature in the hands of slaves would not only make them
dissatisfied, but cause them to take drastic measures to secure
liberty. Those who had emphasized the education of the Negroes to
increase their economic efficiency were largely converted. The
clergy who had insisted that the bondmen were entitled to, at least,
sufficient training to enable them to understand the principles of the
Christian religion, were thereafter willing to forego the benefits
of their salvation rather than see them destroy the institution of
slavery.
[Footnote 1: Hodgson, _Whitney's Remarks during a Journey through
North America_, p. 184.]
In consequence of this tendency, State after State enacted more
stringent laws to control the situation. Missouri passed in 1817 an
act so to regulate the traveling and assembly of slaves as to make
them ineffective in making headway against the white people by
insurrection. Of course, in so doing the reactionaries deprived
them of the opportunities of helpful associations and of attending
schools.[1] By 1819 much dissatisfaction had arisen from the seeming
danger of the various colored schools in Virginia. The General
Assembly, therefore, passed a law providing that there should be no
more assemblages of slaves, or free Negroes, or mulattoes, mixing or
associating with such slaves for teaching them reading and writing.[2]
The opposition here seemed to be for the reasons that Negroes were
being generally enlightened in the towns of the State and that white
persons as teachers in these institutions were largely instrumental in
accomplishing this result. Mississippi even as a Territory had tried
to meet the problem of unlawful assemblies. In the year 1823 it was
declared unlawful for Negroes above the number of five to meet for
educational purposes.[3] Only with the permission of their masters
could slaves attend religious worship conducted by a recognized white
minister or attended by "two discreet and reputable persons."[4]
[Footnote 1: _Laws of Missouri Territory_, etc., p. 498.]
[Footnote 2: Tate, _Digest of the Laws of Virginia_, pp. 849-850.]
[Footnote 3: Poindexter, _Revised Code of the Laws of Mississippi_, p.
390.]
[Footnote 4: _Ibid_., p. 390.]
The problem in Louisiana was first to keep out intelligent persons who
might so inform the slaves as to cause them to rise. Accordingly in
1814[1] the State passed a law prohibiting the immigration of free
persons of color into that commonwealth. This precaution, however, was
not deemed sufficient after the insurrectionary Negroes of New Berne,
Tarborough, and Hillsborough, North Carolina,[2] had risen, and David
Walker of Massachusetts had published to the slaves his fiery appeal
to arms.[3] In 1830, therefore, Louisiana enacted another measure,
providing that whoever should write, print, publish, or distribute
anything having the tendency to produce discontent among the slaves,
should on conviction thereof be imprisoned at hard labor for life or
suffer death at the discretion of the court. It was provided, too,
that whoever used any language or became instrumental in bringing into
the State any paper, book, or pamphlet inducing this discontent should
suffer practically the same penalty. All persons who should teach, or
permit or cause to be taught, any slave to read or write, should be
imprisoned not less than one month nor more than twelve.[4]
[Footnote 1: Bullard and Curry, _A New Digest of the Statute Laws of
the State of Louisiana_, p. 161.]
[Footnote 2: Coffin, _Slave Insurrections_, p. 22.]
[Footnote 3: Walker mentioned "our wretchedness in consequence
of slavery, our wretchedness in consequence of ignorance, our
wretchedness in consequence of the preachers of the religion of Jesus
Christ, and our wretchedness in consequence of the colonization plan."
See _Walker's Appeal_.]
[Footnote 4: Acts passed at the Ninth Session of the Legislature of
Louisiana, p. 96.]
Yielding to the demand of slaveholders, Georgia passed a year later a
law providing that any Negro who should teach another to read or write
should be punished by fine and whipping. If a white person should so
offend, he should be punished with a fine not exceeding $500 and with
imprisonment in the common jail at the discretion of the committing
magistrate.[1]
[Footnote 1] Dawson, _A Compilation of the Laws of the State of
Georgia_, etc., p. 413.
In Virginia where the prohibition did not then extend to freedmen,
there was enacted in 1831 a law providing that any meeting of free
Negroes or mulattoes for teaching them reading or writing should be
considered an unlawful assembly. To break up assemblies for this
purpose any judge or justice of the peace could issue a warrant to
apprehend such persons and inflict corporal punishment not exceeding
twenty lashes. White persons convicted of teaching Negroes to read
or write were to be fined fifty dollars and might be imprisoned two
months. For imparting such information to a slave the offender was
subject to a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred
dollars.[1]
[Footnote 1]_Laws of Virginia_, 1830-1831, p. 108, Sections 5 and 6.
The whole country was again disturbed by the insurrection in
Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. The slave States then had a
striking example of what the intelligent Negroes of the South might
eventually do. The leader of this uprising was Nat Turner. Precocious
as a youth he had learned to read so easily that he did not remember
when he first had that attainment.[1] Given unusual social and
intellectual advantages, he developed into a man of considerable
"mental ability and wide information." His education was chiefly
acquired in the Sunday-schools in which "the text-books for the small
children were the ordinary speller and reader, and that for the older
Negroes the Bible."[2] He had received instruction also from his
parents and his indulgent young master, J.C. Turner.
[Footnote 1] Drewery, _Insurrections in Virginia_, p. 27.
[Footnote 2: Drewery, _Insurrections in Virginia_, p. 28.]
When Nat Turner appeared, the education of the Negro had made the way
somewhat easier for him than it was for his predecessors. Negroes who
could read and write had before them the revolutionary ideas of the
French, the daring deeds of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the bold attempt of
General Gabriel, and the far-reaching plans of Denmark Vesey. These
were sometimes written up in the abolition literature, the circulation
of which was so extensive among the slaves that it became a national
question.[1]
[Footnote 1: These organs were _The Albany Evening Journal, The New
York Free Press, The Genius of Universal Emancipation_, and _The
Boston Liberator_. See _The Richmond Enquirer_, Oct. 21, 1831.]
Trying to account for this insurrection the Governor of the State lays
it to the charge of the Negro preachers who were in position to foment
much disorder on account of having acquired "great ascendancy over the
minds" of discontented slaves. He believed that these ministers were
in direct contact with the agents of abolition, who were using colored
leaders as a means to destroy the institutions of the South. The
Governor was cognizant of the fact that not only was the sentiment of
the incendiary pamphlets read but often the words.[1] To prevent the
"enemies" in other States from communicating with the slaves of that
section he requested that the laws regulating the assembly of Negroes
be more rigidly enforced and that colored preachers be silenced. The
General Assembly complied with this request.[2]
[Footnote 1: _The Richmond Enquirer_, Oct. 21, 1831.]
[Footnote 2: _The Laws of Virginia_, 1831-1832, p. 20.]
The aim of the subsequent reactionary legislation of the South was to
complete the work of preventing the dissemination of information
among Negroes and their reading of abolition literature. This they
endeavored to do by prohibiting the communication of the slaves with
one another, with the better informed free persons of color, and with
the liberal white people; and by closing all the schools theretofore
opened to Negroes. The States passed laws providing for a more
stringent regulation of passes, defining unlawful assemblies, and
fixing penalties for the same. Other statutes prohibited religious
worship, or brought it under direct supervision of the owners of the
slaves concerned, and proscribed the private teaching of slaves in any
manner whatever.
Mississippi, which already had a law to prevent the mental improvement
of the slaves, enacted in 1831 another measure to remove from them the
more enlightened members of their race. All free colored persons were
to leave the State in ninety days. The same law provided, too, that
no Negro should preach in that State unless to the slaves of his
plantation and with the permission of the owner.[1] Delaware saw fit
to take a bold step in this direction. The act of 1831 provided that
no congregation or meeting of free Negroes or mulattoes of more than
twelve persons should be held later than twelve o'clock at night,
except under the direction of three respectable white persons who were
to attend the meeting. It further provided that no free Negro should
attempt to call a meeting for religious worship, to exhort or preach,
unless he was authorized to do so by a judge or justice of the peace,
upon the recommendation of five "respectable and judicious citizens."
[2] This measure tended only to prevent the dissemination of
information among Negroes by making it impossible for them to
assemble. It was not until 1863 that the State of Delaware finally
passed a positive measure to prevent the assemblages of colored
persons for instruction and all other meetings except for religious
worship and the burial of the dead.[3] Following the example of
Delaware in 1832, Florida passed a law prohibiting all meetings of
Negroes except those for divine worship at a church or place attended
by white persons.[4] Florida made the same regulations more stringent
in 1846 when she enjoyed the freedom of a State.[5]
[Footnote 1] Hutchinson, _Code of Mississippi_, p. 533.
[Footnote 2] _Laws of Delaware_, 1832, pp. 181-182.
[Footnote 3] _Ibid._, 1863, p. 330 _et seq._
[Footnote 4: _Acts of the Legislative Council of the Territory of
Florida, 1832_, p. 145.]
[Footnote 5: _Acts of Florida, 1846_, ch. 87, sec. 9.]
Alabama had some difficulty in getting a satisfactory law. In 1832
this commonwealth enacted a law imposing a fine of from $250 to $500
on persons who should attempt to educate any Negro whatsoever. The act
also prohibited the usual unlawful assemblies and the preaching or
exhorting of Negroes except in the presence of five "respectable
slaveholders" or unless the officiating minister was licensed by some
regular church of which the persons thus exhorted were members.[1] It
soon developed that the State had gone too far. It had infringed upon
the rights and privileges of certain creoles, who, being residents
of the Louisiana Territory when it was purchased in 1803, had been
guaranteed the rights of citizens of the United States. Accordingly in
1833 the Mayor and the Aldermen of Mobile were authorized by law to
grant licenses to such persons as they might deem suitable to instruct
for limited periods, in that city and the counties of Mobile and
Baldwin, the free colored children, who were descendants of colored
creoles residing in the district in 1803.[2]
[Footnote 1: Clay, _Digest of the Laws of the State of Alabama_, p.
543.]
[Footnote 2: _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of Ed_., 1871, p. 323.]
Another difficulty of certain commonwealths had to be overcome.
Apparently Georgia had already incorporated into its laws provisions
adequate to the prevention of the mental improvement of Negroes. But
it was discovered that employed as they had been in various positions
either requiring knowledge, or affording its acquirement, Negroes
would pick up the rudiments of education, despite the fact that they
had no access to schools. The State then passed a law imposing a
penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars for the employment of any
slave or free person of color "in setting up type or other labor about
a printing office requiring a knowledge of reading and writing."[1]
In 1834 South Carolina saw the same danger. In addition to enacting a
more stringent law for the prevention of the teaching of Negroes by
white or colored friends, and for the destruction of their schools,
it provided that persons of African blood should not be employed as
clerks or salesmen in or about any shop or store or house used for
trading.[2]
[Footnote 1: Cobb, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, p. 555; and
Prince, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, p. 658.]
[Footnote 2: Laws of South Carolina, 1834.]
North Carolina was among the last States to take such drastic measures
for the protection of the white race. In this commonwealth the whites
and blacks had lived on liberal terms. Negroes had up to this time
enjoyed the right of suffrage there. Some attended schools open to
both races. A few even taught white children.[1]
[Footnote 1: Bassett, _Slavery in North Carolina_, p. 74; and
testimonies of various ex-slaves.]
The intense feeling against Negroes engendered by the frequency
of insurrections, however, sufficed to swing the State into the
reactionary column by 1835. An act passed by the Legislature that year
prohibited the public instruction of Negroes, making it impossible
for youth of African descent to get any more education than what
they could in their own family circle.[1] The public school system
established thereafter specifically provided that its benefits should
not extend to any descendant from Negro ancestors to the fourth
generation inclusive.[2] Bearing so grievously this loss of their
social status after they had toiled up from poverty, many ambitious
free persons of color, left the State for more congenial communities.
[Footnote 1: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina_, 578.]
[Footnote 2: _Laws of North Carolina, 1835_, C.6, S.2.]
The States of the West did not have to deal so severely with their
slaves as was deemed necessary in Southern States. Missouri found it
advisable in 1833 to amend the law of 1817[1] so as to regulate more
rigorously the traveling and the assembling of slaves. It was not
until 1847, however, that this commonwealth specifically provided
that no one should keep or teach any school for the education of
Negroes.[2] Tennessee had as early as 1803 a law governing the
movement of slaves but exhibited a little more reactionary spirit in
1836 in providing that there should be no circulation of seditious
books or pamphlets which might lead to insurrection or rebellion
among Negroes.[3] Tennessee, however, did not positively forbid the
education of colored people. Kentucky had a system of regulating the
egress and regress of slaves but never passed any law prohibiting
their instruction. Yet statistics show that although the education of
Negroes was not penalized, it was in many places made impossible by
public sentiment. So was it in the State of Maryland, which did not
expressly forbid the instruction of anyone.
[Footnote 1: _Laws of the Territory of Missouri_, p. 498.]
[Footnote 2: _Laws of the State of Missouri_, 1847, pp. 103 and 104.]
[Footnote 3: _Public Acts passed at the First Session of the General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee_, p. 145, chap. 44.]
These reactionary results were not obtained without some opposition.
The governing element of some States divided on the question. The
opinions of this class were well expressed in the discussion between
Chancellor Harper and J.B. O'Neal of the South Carolina bar. The
former said that of the many Negroes whom he had known to be capable
of reading, he had never seen one read anything but the Bible. He
thought that they imposed this task upon themselves as a matter
of duty. Because of the Negroes' "defective comprehension and the
laborious nature of this employment to them"[1] he considered such
reading an inefficient method of religious instruction. He, therefore,
supported the oppressive measures of the South. The other member
of the bar maintained that men could not reflect as Christians and
justify the position that slaves should not be permitted to read the
Bible. "It is in vain," added he, "to say there is danger in it. The
best slaves of the State are those who can and do read the Scriptures.
Again, who is it that teaches your slaves to read? It is generally
done by the children of the owners. Who would tolerate an indictment
against his son or daughter for teaching a slave to read? Such laws
look to me as rather cowardly."[2] This attorney was almost of
the opinion of many others who believed that the argument that to
Christianize and educate the colored people of a slave commonwealth
had a tendency to elevate them above their masters and to destroy the
"legitimate distinctions" of the community, could be admitted only
where the people themselves were degraded.
[Footnote 1: DeBow, _The Industrial Resources of the Southern and
Western States_, vol. ii., p. 269.]
[Footnote 2: DeBow, _The Industrial Resources of the Southern and
Western States_, vol. ii., p. 279.]
After these laws had been passed, American slavery extended not
as that of the ancients, only to the body, but also to the mind.
Education was thereafter regarded as positively inconsistent with the
institution. The precaution taken to prevent the dissemination of
information was declared indispensable to the system. The situation in
many parts of the South was just as Berry portrayed it in the Virginia
House of Delegates in 1832. He said: "We have as far as possible
closed every avenue by which light may enter their [the slaves']
minds. If we could extinguish the capacity to see the light, our work
would be completed; they would then be on a level with the beasts of
the field and we should be safe! I am not certain that we would not
do it, if we could find out the process, and that on the plea of
necessity."[1]
[Footnote 1: Coffin, _Slave Insurrections_, p. 23; and Goodell, _Slave
Code_, p. 323.]
It had then come to pass that in the South, where once were found
a considerable number of intelligent Negroes, they had become
exceedingly scarce or disappeared from certain sections altogether. On
plantations of hundreds of slaves it was common to discover that
not one of them had the mere rudiments of education. In some large
districts it was considered almost a phenomenon to find a Negro who
could read the Bible or sign his name.[1]
[Footnote 1:_Ibid._, pp. 323-324.]
The reactionary tendency was in no sense confined to the Southern
States. Laws were passed in the North to prevent the migration of
Negroes to that section. Their education at certain places was
discouraged. In fact, in the proportion that the conditions in the
South made it necessary for free blacks to flee from oppression, the
people of the North grew less tolerant on account of the large number
of those who crowded the towns and cities of the free States near the
border. The antislavery societies at one time found it necessary to
devote their time to the amelioration of the economic condition of the
refugees to make them acceptable to the white people rather than to
direct their attention to mere education.[1] Not a few northerners,
dreading an influx of free Negroes, drove them even from communities
to which they had learned to, repair for education.
[Footnote 1: _Proceedings of the American Convention_.]
The best example of this intolerance was the opposition encountered
by Prudence Crandall, a well-educated young Quaker lady, who had
established a boarding-school at Canterbury, Connecticut. Trouble
arose when Sarah Harris, a colored girl, asked admission to this
institution.[1] For many reasons Miss Crandall hesitated to admit her
but finally yielded. Only a few days thereafter the parents of the
white girls called on Miss Crandall to offer their objections to
sending their children to school with a "nigger."[2] Miss Crandall
stood firm, the white girls withdrew, and the teacher advertised for
young women of color. The determination to continue the school on this
basis incited the townsmen to hold an indignation meeting. They passed
resolutions to protest through a committee of local officials against
the establishment of a school of this kind in that community. At this
meeting Andrew T. Judson denounced the policy of Miss Crandall, while
the Rev. Samuel J. May ably defended it. Judson was not only opposed
to the establishment of such a school in Canterbury but in any part of
the State. He believed that colored people, who could never rise
from their menial condition in the United States, should not to
be encouraged to expect to elevate themselves in Connecticut. He
considered them inferior servants who should not be treated as equals
of the Caucasians, but should be sent back to Africa to improve
themselves and Christianize the natives.[3] On the contrary, Mr. May
thought that there would never be fewer colored people in this country
than were found here then and that it would be unjust to exile them.
He asserted that white people should grant Negroes their rights or
lose their own and that since education is the primal, fundamental
right of all men, Connecticut was the last place where this should be
denied.[4]
[Footnote 1: Jay, _An Inquiry_, etc., p. 30.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., pp. 32 _et seq_.]
[Footnote 3: Jay, _An Inquiry, etc._, p. 33; and _Special Report of
the U.S. Com. of Ed._, pp. 328 _et seq._]
[Footnote 4: Jay, _An Inquiry_, etc., p. 33.]
Miss Crandall and her pupils were threatened with violence.
Accommodation at the local stores was denied her. The pupils were
insulted. The house was besmeared and damaged. An effort was made to
invoke the law by which the selectmen might warn any person not an
inhabitant of the State to depart under penalty of paying $1.67 for
every week he remained after receiving such notice.[1] This failed,
but Judson and his followers were still determined that the "nigger
school" should never be allowed in Canterbury nor any town of the
State. They appealed to the legislature. Setting forth in its preamble
that the evil to be obviated was the increase of the black population
of the commonwealth, that body passed a law providing that no person
should establish a school for the instruction of colored people who
were not inhabitants of the State of Connecticut, nor should any one
harbor or board students brought to the State for this purpose without
first obtaining, in writing, the consent of a majority of the civil
authority and of the selectmen of the town.[2]
[Footnote 1: _Special Report of the U.S. Com. of Ed_., 1871, p. 331;
and May, _Letters to A.T. Judson, Esq., and Others_, p. 5.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., p. 5.]
The enactment of this law caused Canterbury to go wild with joy. Miss
Crandall was arrested on the 27th of June, and committed to await her
trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. She and her friends
refused to give bond that the officials might go the limit in
imprisoning her. Miss Crandall was placed in a murderer's cell. Mr.
May, who had stood by her, said when he saw the door locked and the
key taken out, "The deed is done, completely done. It cannot be
recalled. It has passed into the history of our nation and age." Miss
Crandall was tried the 23d of August, 1833, at Brooklyn, the county
seat of the county of Windham. The jury failed to agree upon a
verdict, doubtless because Joseph Eaton, who presided, had given it as
his opinion that the law was probably unconstitutional. At the second
trial before Judge Dagget of the Supreme Court, who was an advocate of
the law, Miss Crandall was convicted. Her counsel, however, filed a
bill of exceptions and took an appeal to the Court of Errors. The
case came up on the 22d of July, 1834. The nature of the law was ably
discussed by W.W. Ellsworth and Calvin Goddard, who maintained that
it was unconstitutional, and by A.T. Judson and C.F. Cleveland, who
undertook to prove its constitutionality. The court reserved its
decision, which was never given. Finding that there were defects in
the information prepared by the attorney for the State, the indictment
was quashed. Because of subsequent attempts to destroy the building,
Mr. May and Miss Crandall decided to abandon the school.[1]
[Footnote 1: Jay, _An Inquiry, etc._, p. 26.]
It resulted then that even in those States to which free blacks had
long looked for sympathy, the fear excited by fugitives from the more
reactionary commonwealths had caused northerners so to yield to the
prejudices of the South that they opposed insuperable obstacles to the
education of Negroes for service in the United States. The colored
people, as we shall see elsewhere, were not allowed to locate their
manual labor college at New Haven[1] and the principal of the Noyes
Academy at Canaan, New Hampshire, saw his institution destroyed
because he decided to admit colored students.[2] These fastidious
persons, however, raised no objection to the establishment of schools
to prepare Negroes to expatriate themselves under the direction of the
American Colonization Society.[3]
[Footnote 1: _Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention for the
Improvement of the Free People of Color_, p. 14.]
[Footnote 2: _Fourth Annual Report of the American Antislavery
Society_, p. 34.]
[Footnote 3: Alexander, _A History of Colonization on the Western
Continent_, p. 348.]
Observing these conditions the friends of the colored people could
not be silent. The abolitionists led by Caruthers, May, and Garrison
hurled their weapons at the reactionaries, branding them as
inconsistent schemers. After having advanced the argument of the
mental inferiority of the colored race they had adopted the policy
of educating Negroes on the condition that they be removed from the
country.[1] Considering education one of the rights of man, the
abolitionists persistently rebuked the North and South for their
inhuman policy. On every opportune occasion they appealed to the world
in behalf of the oppressed race, which the hostile laws had removed
from humanizing influences, reduced to the plane of beasts, and made
to die in heathenism.
[Footnote 1: Jay,_An Inquiry_, etc., p. 26; Johns Hopkins University
Studies, Series xvi., p. 319; and _Proceedings of the New York State
Colonization Society_, 1831, p. 6.]
In reply to the abolitionists the protagonists of the reactionaries
said that but for the "intrusive and intriguing interference of
pragmatical fanatics"[1] such precautionary enactments would never
have been necessary. There was some truth in this statement; for
in certain districts these measures operated not to prevent the
aristocratic people of the South from enlightening the Negroes, but to
keep away from them what they considered undesirable instructors.
The southerners regarded the abolitionists as foes in the field,
industriously scattering the seeds of insurrection which could then
be prevented only by blocking every avenue through which they could
operate upon the minds of the slaves. A writer of this period
expressed it thus: "It became necessary to check or turn aside the
stream which instead of flowing healthfully upon the Negro is
polluted and poisoned by the abolitionists and rendered the source
of discontent and excitement."[2] He believed that education thus
perverted would become equally dangerous to the master and the slave,
and that while fanaticism continued its war upon the South the
measures of necessary precaution and defense had to be continued. He
asserted, however, that education would not only unfit the Negro for
his station in life and prepare him for insurrection, but would prove
wholly impracticable in the performance of the duties of a laborer.[3]
The South has not yet learned that an educated man is a better laborer
than an ignorant one.
[Footnote 1: Hodgkin, _An Inquiry into the Merits of the Am. Col.
Soc_., p. 31; and _The South Vindicated from the Treason and
Fanaticism of the Abolitionists_, p. 68.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., p. 69.]
[Footnote 3: _The South Vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of
the Abolitionists_, p. 69.]