What to do with the Negro population has almost always been a question
before the American people. Since the early date of 1714 its removal
to some territory beyond the limits of the United States or to an
unsettled area of our public lands has been advocated. During the
century which followed the earliest mention of deportation, its
advocates published their plans as individual propaganda, sought the
approbation of religious and humanitarian organizations, and in one or
two instances tried to secure favorable State or national action on
them. But throughout this long period of one hundred years no
concerted action was taken: the period is characterized by sporadic
origins and isolated efforts; and these early projectors of plans to
remove the Negro were the trailmakers in a pioneering movement which
culminated in a national organization.[234]
Obviously private enterprise alone could make little headway in the
actual colonization of the Negroes in a territory sufficiently distant
to be beyond the pale of the white population. The one item of expense
was too serious a handicap for individual initiative to overcome.
Besides the case of Captain Izard Bacon of Virginia, who temporarily
removed his fifty-two freedmen to Pennsylvania to await a favorable
time for sending them over sea,[235] and of Mary Matthews of King
George's County, Virginia, who by will emancipated her slaves and
provided for their removal to a place where they could enjoy their
liberty,[236] there is but one significant example of actual
colonization under individual auspices. This occurred in 1815 when
Paul Cuffe took thirty-eight Negroes to the western coast of
Africa.[237] This dramatic event in Negro deportation, owing to the
wide publicity given to it, stimulated activity anew in colonization
ventures.
We shall now review these new schemes and show how representatives of
the transportation movement assembled in Washington city, and having
enlisted in their cause men most distinguished in the councils of the
nation, formed the American Society for Colonizing the Free People of
Color of the United States, an organization still in existence but now
known as the American Colonization Society and having as a monument to
its checkered career, the free Negro republic, Liberia, on the western
coast of Africa.
To begin with, it is well to point out that Thomas Jefferson, whose
advocacy of Negro colonization dates from 1773, replied in 1811, to a
request for his opinion on Ann Mifflin's proposition to make a
settlement of colored people on the west coast of Africa under the
auspices of the different States, that he considered it "the most
desirable measure which could be adopted for gradually drawing off"
the black population; and he added: "nothing is more to be wished than
that the United States should themselves undertake to make such an
establishment on the coast of Africa."[238] It requires little effort
to appreciate the weight of this Ex-President's opinion, and
colonizationists later gave wide publicity to it in order to
strengthen their cause.[239]
Additional deportation sentiment is found in the recommendations of
the Union Humane Society, an anti-slavery organization founded in
1815, in Ohio, by Benjamin Lundy. Two planks in the program of the
Society are noteworthy: first, it emphasized the necessity of common
action by all forces interested in the amelioration of the Negro race;
and, second, it recommended as a basis for common action the removal
of the Negroes beyond the pale of the white man.[240]
While the Union Humane Society was silent on national aid, the
Kentucky Colonization Society came out in strong terms for it. Taking
advantage of the close of the War of 1812 and of the existence of vast
tracts of unappropriated lands in the United States, and realizing
that the number of free blacks daily increased, and that the territory
open to them for residence was greatly restricted owing to the
prohibitory legislation existing in many States, this Society, at its
annual meeting, held in Frankfort, October 18 and 19, 1815, petitioned
Congress that a suitable territory "be laid off as an asylum for all
those negroes and mulattoes who have been, and those who may hereafter
be, emancipated within the United States; and that such donations,
allowances, encouragements, and assistance be afforded them as may be
necessary for carrying them thither and settling them therein; and
that they be under such regulations and government in all respects as
your wisdom shall direct."[241]
Another manifestation of sentiment for removing the Negroes to a
distant territory is found in a series of resolutions passed by the
Virginia Assembly on December 21, 1816. These resolutions were
introduced and sponsored by Charles Fenton Mercer, a slaveholder. In
the spring of 1816, he accidentally discovered the secret action of
the Assembly, taken in 1800, just after the Negro insurrection of that
year, the upshot of which was two resolutions directing the Governor
to correspond with the President of the United States for the purpose
of securing somewhere a suitable territory for the colonization of
emancipated slaves and free Negroes[242]. It was too near the end of
the session when Mercer found these resolutions for him to present a
program to the Assembly. In the interim, however, Mercer broke the bar
of secrecy, interviewed Francis S. Key, of Georgetown, and Elias B.
Caldwell, of Washington city, and with their advice drew up some
resolutions to introduce in the Assembly at its next session.
Moreover, while in the North that summer for the purpose of the
recuperation of his health, having made known his plan, he received
"promises of pecuniary aid, and of active cooperation."[243] At the
next session of the Virginia Assembly, Mercer introduced his
resolutions, the purport of which asked the national government to
find a territory on the North Pacific on which to settle free blacks
and those afterwards emancipated in Virginia. These resolutions having
been amended by the Senate to read on the North Pacific or the African
Coast were passed by the Assembly on December 21, 1816, the very day
on which the first public meeting of deportationists was held in
Washington and out of which grew the American Colonization Society.
A year later, speaking before this organization, Mercer stated his
reasons for supporting deportation. "Many thousand individuals in our
native State, you well know Mr. President, are restrained from
manumitting their slaves, as you and I are, by the melancholy
conviction that they cannot yield to the suggestions of humanity
without manifest injury to their country." He held that the rapidly
increasing free black population endangered the peace of the State and
impaired in a large section the value of slave property. What
banditti, consisting of the degraded, idle, and vicious free blacks,
"sally forth from their coverts, beneath the obscurity of night, and
plunder the rich proprietors of the valleys. They infest the suburbs
of the towns and cities, where they become the depositories of stolen
goods, and, schooled by necessity, elude the vigilance of our
defective police."[245] Thus a Virginia slaveholder saw in Negro
colonization a means to relieve the State of a dangerous population,
to increase the value of slave property and to make possible
manumission by that class of slaveholders in which he put himself.
A concurrent expression on Negro deportation, but apparently an
independent one, is connected with the name of Robert Finley, of
Basking Ridge, New Jersey. A graduate of Princeton, a teacher, a
Presbyterian pastor, Finley was in 1816 made president of the
University of Georgia, at Athens, where he died the following year at
the age of forty-five. As early as 1814 he wrote "a very particular
friend in Philadelphia" his ideas on Negro colonization.[246] On
February 15, 1815, he wrote a letter to John O. Mumford, of New York
City, in which he argued for the removal of the free blacks. He said
in part: "Everything connected with their condition, including their
color, is against them; nor is there much prospect that their state
can ever be greatly ameliorated, while they shall continue among us.
Could not the rich and benevolent devise means to form a colony on
some part of the Coast of Africa, similar to the one at Sierra Leone,
which might gradually induce many free blacks to go there and settle,
devising for them the means of getting there, and of protection and
support till they were established? Ought not Congress to be
petitioned to grant them a district in a good climate, say on the
shores of the Pacific Ocean? Our fathers brought them here, and we are
bound if possible to repair the injuries inflicted by our fathers.
Could they be sent to Africa, a three-fold benefit would arise. We
should be cleared of them; we should send to Africa a population
partially civilized and christianized for its benefits; our blacks
themselves would be put in better condition. Think much on this
subject, then please write me again when you have leisure."[247]
Reverend Mr. Finley participated in a colonization meeting held in
Princeton, New Jersey, November 6, 1816, which drew up a memorial
urging the legislature to use its influence in securing the adoption
of some deportation scheme by Congress. The memorialists recognized
that many slaves had been emancipated; that the same principles that
prompted past manumissions would gradually effect the freedom of all
others; that freedmen should be able "to rise to that condition to
which they are entitled by the laws of God and nature"; therefore,
they should be separated from the whites and placed in a favorable
situation, possibly Africa.[248]
A third concurrent manifestation of colonization activity is connected
with the name of Samuel J. Mills, whose indefatigable energy and
unselfish devotion to all causes missionary are scarcely paralleled in
history. Whether as an undergraduate at Williams College or as a
graduate student at Yale or Andover Theological Seminary, he was
feverishly active in projecting plans for Christian missionary work.
His mother said: "I have consecrated this child to the service of God
as a missionary,"[249] and surely he was faithful to death to this
dedication. He was the leader of the Society of Inquiry Respecting
Missions, founded in 1810, an organization which favored African
colonization.[250] As soon as his college work was over he made a
missionary tour through the Middle West and South, under the auspices
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel,[251] and in 1814-15 he made
a second tour.[252] He is credited with having originated the American
Bible Society, the United Foreign Missionary Society, and the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. He took a deep interest
in the movement which about this time sent men to India, Ceylon, the
Sandwich Islands, and to the various tribes of the American Indians.
He had a hand in the formation of the Foreign Mission school at
Cornwall, Connecticut, and the establishment of the African School at
Parsippany, New Jersey, is directly attributed to him.
When Mills made his tour through the West and South he not only
preached the Gospel and distributed Bibles, he studied the condition
of the Negro as well. "We must save the Negroes or the Negroes will
ruin us," he concluded. He was convinced that if some disposition
could be made of the free Negroes, many slaveholders would gladly
emancipate their slaves. With this in view, he sought to procure a
district in Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois where the blacks might be
colonized. In this way he could test his principle and develop leaders
for a more extended settlement in the far West or in Africa.[253] This
plan did not mature, but he continued to recommend emigration both to
the blacks and whites and to provide for the training of Negro
teachers and preachers. The young missionary established a school
under the care of the synod of New York and New Jersey at Parsippany
in the latter state, which was to "qualify young men of color for
teachers of schools and preachers of the gospel, in hope of exerting
an influence in correcting morals and manners of their brethren in
cities and large towns; and also to raise up teachers for these
people, should an effort be made to settle them by themselves, either
in this country or abroad." Some gave to aid the school as an
auxiliary to the colonization effort, who would not have given, had
not that view been presented. "I am confident," Mills wrote (in 1817),
"that the people of color now in this country, that is, many of them,
will be settled by themselves, either in this country or abroad. The
teachers who may be raised up will promote this object. Whether they
remain in this country or not, much must be done to qualify them for
living in society by themselves."[254]
One of the earliest movements in which an effort was made to adopt
some particular plan of operation was at Georgetown, District of
Columbia, in March, 1816. The meeting was called by a resident of
Georgetown, then a little village, and several citizens of the
neighboring States were present and took part in the discussion.[255]
Other expressions favorable to the deportation of Negroes were made
about this time. At a meeting in Greene County, Tennessee, composed of
delegates of the Manumission Society, emancipation was recommended
"and if thought best, that a colony be laid off for their reception as
they become free."[256] Dr. Jesse Torrey, Jr., a physician, writing a
few days before the passage of the Virginia resolutions, advocated the
transfer of the Negroes to some distant American Territory. He
thought, since Congress had done nothing toward such a movement,
public subscriptions from beneficent societies and individuals should
be solicited with which to purchase a suitable site for a colony and
meet the expense of transportation.[257] Hezekiah Niles, the great
compiler, said he had thought on colonization from his youth up.[258]
An editorial in a Georgia newspaper dated January 1, 1817, said
deportation was seriously agitated in different parts of the country.
The Georgia editor believed that free blacks were dangerous to the
welfare of society and that the gradual reduction of the number of
slaves was imperative to the public good. "We must choose between our
own destruction and general emancipation," said the Georgian. "If the
government will find means of conveying out of the country such slaves
as may be emancipated and would likewise purchase annually a certain
number, particularly females for transportation, it is believed our
black population would soon become harmless if not extinct. To the
importance of such an object, the expense will bear no comparison; and
a more favorable period than at present for its accomplishment can
scarcely be expected."[259]
The Georgia editor was right. On the very day that his editorial went
to press, a representative body of men were in conference on this
subject at Washington city; and as a result of their deliberation the
American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the United
States (later known as the American Colonization Society) was
organized. The leading advocates of Negro deportation looked to the
city of Washington as the strategic place to advance their cause. The
earliest arrival was Robert Finley, who reached the capital about the
beginning of the month of December, 1816. He had spent the greater
part of the fall maturing plans for bringing the cause before the
people. It is highly probable that he knew nothing about the plans of
other advocates nor of the action of the Virginia Assembly. Upon his
arrival at Washington he immediately began to call on Congressmen, the
Cabinet officials, the President, and, in fact, on any one whom he
could interest.[260]
Finley was in communication with Paul Cuffe, the only practical
colonizationist in America. His expeditions to Africa and England, and
especially the transportation of Negroes to Sierra Leone, in 1815,
were noted in the press as far west as Louisville, Kentucky,[261] and
those interested in further efforts along this line were in touch with
him. Samuel C. Aiken, of Andover, had written him on July 23, 1816,
and Jedekiah Morse four days later.[262] Finley wrote Cuffe, December
5, on the back of the printed memorial to the New Jersey Legislature,
undoubtedly the work of the Princeton meeting of the previous
November, for information about Sierra Leone, information to be used
by him and others interested in the free people of color. He also
asked if Cuffe thought some other part of Africa more desirable for a
settlement than Sierra Leone and stated that "the great desire of
those whose minds are impressed with this subject is to give an
opportunity to the free people of color to rise to their proper level
and at the same time to provide a powerful means of putting an end to
the slave trade and sending civilization and Christianity to
Africa."[263] Cuffe was unable to reply to this letter before January
8. He gave Finley the information he desired and recommended in the
event of a general deportation the Cape of Good Hope as a location for
a settlement.[264]
In a printed pamphlet, "Thoughts on the Colonization of Free
Blacks,"[265] which Finley wrote about this time and which he was
distributing in Washington, is contained the line of argument he was
using. He said: "At present, as if by divine impulse, men of virtue,
piety, and reflection, are turning their thoughts to this subject, and
seem to see the wished-for plan unfolding, in the gradual separation
of the black from the white population, by providing for the former,
some suitable situation, where men may enjoy the advantages to which
they are entitled by nature and their Creator's will." He argued for
the practicability of establishing a colony either in the "Wild Lands"
of America or in Africa, but he thought Africa the more desirable as
this location would prevent conflicts with the remaining slave
population, and avoid foreign intrigues. He held that Africa had the
advantage of being the real home of the Negro, of having the existing
settlements in Sierra Leone formed by English philanthropists and by
Paul Cuffe. On the other hand, requiring explorations, diplomatic
negotiations and great expense, it offered greater obstacles than a
location within America. But Finley was not disheartened, believing,
as he did, in the justice of the cause and in the wisdom of Congress
to devise some means to lighten, perhaps to repay, the cost. He
continued by saying: "Many of the free people of color have property
sufficient to transport, and afterward to establish themselves. The
ships of war might be employed occasionally in this service, while
many Negroes themselves could be induced to procure a passage to the
land of their independence. The crews of the national ships which
might be from time to time at the colony, would furnish at least a
part of that protection which would be necessary for the settlers; and
in a little time the trade which the colony would open with the
interior, would more than compensate for every expense, if the colony
were wisely formed." The Negroes, Finley thought, would gladly go, for
they long after happiness and have the common pride and feelings of
men. Already, he pointed out, an association of free blacks existed in
Philadelphia whose purpose was to correspond with Sierra Leone and
investigate the possibilities of an immigration. Finley held that
colonization would gradually reduce slavery, because provision being
made for the emancipated slaves, masters would manumit them.
Samuel J. Mills, "having been providentially made acquainted"[266]
with this movement, about the close of November left New York, where
he was working among the poor, immediately for Washington. What he, as
well as the other workers, did there, is pretty well indicated by
Congressman Elijah J. Mills of Massachusetts in a letter to his wife,
under date of December 25: "Among the great and important objects to
which our attention is called, a project is lately started for
settling, with free blacks which abound in the South and West, a
colony, either on the coast of Africa, or in some remote region in our
own country. It has excited great interest, and I am inclined to think
that in the course of a few years it will be carried into effect. I
enclose you an address which is in circulation here upon the subject.
Agents are attending from different parts of the United States,
soliciting Congress to take the subject up immediately, and I was this
morning called upon by a Mr. Mills (a young clergyman who was at New
Orleans with Smith), who is very zealously engaged in the work. He is
an intelligent young man, and appears completely devoted to the great
work of diffusing the blessings of Christianity to those who are
ignorant of it."[267]
The first general conference that the colonization workers had in
Washington was in the nature of a "prayer meeting"[268] held in the
home of Elias B. Caldwell, a brother-in-law of Finley, clerk of the
United States Supreme Court, and afterward secretary of the American
Colonization Society. This meeting, which both Mills and Finley
attended, was "for the purpose of imploring the divine direction, on
the evening of the following day, when the expediency of forming a
Colonization Society was to be publicly discussed."[269] The
enthusiasm of Finley at this time was almost boundless; he would give
five hundred dollars of his own scanty means to insure its success;
when some, thinking the project foolhardy, laughed at it, he declared,
"I know the scheme is from God."[270] The efficacy of prayer bore the
traditional fruit, for whereas persons "were brought there from
curiosity, or by the solicitation of their friends, viewing the scheme
as too chimerical for any national being to undertake [nevertheless] a
great change"[271] was produced on them.
According to their plans, Congressman Charles Marsh, of Vermont,
having made the necessary arrangements,[272] the colonizationists held
on the next evening, December 21, 1816, in the Davis Hotel, a public
meeting, attended by citizens of Washington, Georgetown, Alexandria,
and other parts of the country. Among the men of note present, not
heretofore mentioned, were Henry Clay, Francis S. Key, Bishop William
Meade, John Randolph, and Judge Bushrod Washington.[273] Niles reports
the attendance "numerous and respectable, and its proceedings fraught
with interest."[274] The avowed object of the meeting was for the
"purpose of considering the expediency and practicability of
ameliorating the condition of the Free People of Color now in the
United States, by providing a Colonial Retreat, either on this
continent or that of Africa."[275]
Henry Clay, the chairman of the meeting, pointed out in his remarks
that no attempt was being made "to touch or agitate in the slightest
degree, a delicate question, connected with another portion of the
colored population of this country. It was not proposed to deliberate
upon or consider at all, any question of emancipation, or that which
was connected with the abolition of slavery. It was upon that
condition alone he was sure, that many gentlemen from the South and
West, whom he saw present, had attended, or could be expected to
cooperate. It was upon that condition only that he himself had
attended."[276]
The principal address was delivered by Elias B. Caldwell, the
Princeton schoolmate of Charles Fenton Mercer. He argued for the
expediency and practicability of African colonization. It was
expedient because the free blacks have a demoralizing influence on our
civil institutions; they can never enjoy equality among the whites in
America; only in a district by themselves will they ever be happy. To
colonize them in America would invite the possibility of their making
common cause with the Indians and border nations, and furnish an
asylum for fugitives and runaway slaves. Africa seemed the best place
to send them: there was a settlement already in Sierra Leone, the
climate was agreeable to the colored man's constitution, they could
live cheaply there, and above all other reasons, they could carry
civilization and Christianity to the Africans. While the expense would
be greater than that connected with a settlement on the American
Continent yet, in order to make atonement for the wrongs done Africa,
America should contribute to this object both from the treasury of the
national government and from the purse of private individuals. With
the promise of equality, a homestead, and a free passage, no black
would refuse to go. In concluding his speech he said: "It is for us to
make the experiment and the offers; we shall then, and not till then,
have discharged our duty. It is a plan in which all interests, all
classes, and descriptions of people may unite, in which all discordant
feelings may be lost in those of humanity, in promoting 'peace on
earth and good will to man.'"[277]
Robert Wright of Maryland, having pointed out some difficulties, gave
colonization his approbation with the hope that there would arise for
gradual emancipation some plan in which slaves would be prepared for
freedom, and slaveholders would be remunerated out of the funds of the
nation.[278]
It appeared to John Randolph of Roanoke that "it had not been
sufficiently insisted on with a view to obtain the cooperation of all
the citizens of the United States, not only that this meeting does not
in any wise affect the question of Negro Slavery, but, as far as it
goes, must materially tend to secure the property of every master in
the United States over his slaves." He considered the free black "a
great evil," "a nuisance," and "a bug-bear to every man who feels an
inclination to emancipate his slaves." "If a place could be provided
for their reception," said Randolph, "and a mode of sending them
hence, there were [sic] hundreds, nay thousands of citizens" who would
manumit their slaves.[279] Randolph's characterization of the free
black was generally approved by the leaders in this movement. Caldwell
used "degraded" and "ignorant" in describing this class of people.
Mills said: "It will transfer to the coast of Africa the blessings of
religion and civilization; and Ethiopia will soon stretch out her
hands to God."[280]
One finds it difficult to explain how the colonizationists could argue
that one of their objects was to remove a dangerous element from our
population and at the same time take civilization and Christianity to
Africa. No doubt it was expected that the Negroes who attended the
schools, established principally by Mills, would become efficient
leaders of their fellows. It is highly probable also that the
arguments were designed for different sections of the country and
different classes of people--to remove the dangerous element would
make a strong appeal to the slaveholder and the South, for it was
believed that the free black contaminated and ruined the slave; to
civilize and Christianize Africa would appeal to churchmen and
religious bodies, and this argument could be used in the North. To
return to Africa people who could contribute to her betterment;
indeed, to return to Africa the descendants of her enslaved sons and
daughters improved by contact with the civilization of the whites
would be a recompense to that continent for the wrongs perpetrated,
during a period of two hundred years, on her population. It was only
America's moral obligation, said the colonizationists, to return the
black population to Africa.
Another object the deportationists had in mind was to stop the slave
trade. They believed that the existence of a settlement in Africa
would deter the slaveholder from securing his cargo in human beings.
It would also furnish the opportunity needed to develop a commerce in
legitimate articles of trade between Africa and America and other
parts of the world. It was also hoped by the leaders of this
deportation movement to remove the great obstacle to the abolition of
slavery. Now that provision was made for the freedmen the slaveholder
felt at liberty to manumit his slaves. To quote Mills again: "It is
confidently believed by many of our best and wisest men, that, if the
plan proposed succeeds, it will ultimately be the means of
exterminating slavery in our country."[281]
The charge was made later, especially by the Abolitionists, that the
movement was a deeply laid device for making slavery more secure than
ever. They took great delight in referring to Randolph's remark, made
at the first public meeting of the deportationists, that colonization
would tend "to secure the property of every master in the United
States over his slaves." Subsequently the management of the Society
itself recognized the force of this remark as a quotation from the
eighty-second report will show: "It was this ill-omened utterance of a
solitary member of the Society, who appears to have taken very little
if any part in its subsequent proceedings, that afterward gave the
impracticable abolitionists a text for the most vituperative and
persistent assaults upon the Society and its purpose."[282] Randolph's
remark is not only qualified by the fact that he took "very little if
any part in its subsequent proceedings" but also by his prediction
that thousands of slaveholders, when assured of a place to send the
Negroes, would emancipate their slaves because they would then be
relieved from their care. With all this, however, Randolph claimed the
colonization movement had nothing to do with abolition.
And it must also be remembered that the eccentric Randolph was only
one man among a large group of men who were interested in the
deportation movement. In this large group two, Mills and Finley,
religious patriots, stand head and shoulders above all the others,
both of whom, Mills, particularly, hoped to provide a method for the
abolition of slavery. Moreover, the Abolitionists should have observed
that the name of Daniel Webster appeared among the signers of the
constitution as well as the name of Ferdinando Fairfax[283] and
especially that of William Thorton.[284] Fairfax and Thorton were
excellent representatives of deportation schemes, proposed in the
eighteenth century and deliberately designed to remove from our
country all Negroes both free and slave. It seems, therefore, safe to
conclude that the colonization movement of 1816-17 was at that time
sincere in its purpose and straightforward in its aims.
Therefore with humanitarian aims the colonizationists at their first
public meeting, December 21, 1816, passed resolutions favorable to the
formation of an association for the purpose of deporting the free
blacks to Africa or elsewhere, and appointed a committee to draw up
and present a memorial to Congress requesting measures for securing a
suitable territory for a settlement, and another committee to prepare
a constitution and rules to govern the association when formed.[285]
Having taken this action, they decided to adjourn until the following
Saturday, December 28, at six o'clock.
According to this arrangement "citizens of Washington, Georgetown, and
Alexandria, and many others" met in the Hall of the House of
Representatives of the United States and adopted a Constitution.[286]
By provision of the Constitution the Association was "The American
Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the United States"
and its exclusive object "to promote and execute a plan for colonizing
(with their consent) the Free People of Color residing in our Country,
in Africa, or such other place as Congress shall deem most
expedient." Every citizen of the United States was eligible to
membership upon the payment of one dollar, the annual dues, or as
amended a few days later, thirty dollars for life membership.
Provision was made for the usual officers and for the formation of
auxiliary societies to this parent organization.[287] The first annual
meeting was fixed for Wednesday, January 1, 1817.
On this date the colonizationists met in Davis's Hotel, Henry Clay
again presiding. Bushrod Washington was elected President of the
Society, equally noted men were chosen for the other officers,[288]
and on motion of the Honorable John C. Herbert of Maryland, Reverend
Robert Finley was "requested to close the meeting with an address to
the Throne of Grace"[289] which he did, it being "his last public act
in the last public meeting"[290] for the organization and success of
the American Colonization Society.