A NEW FIELD.
Prior to the reception of that order, Major Delany was in that state
of painful inactivity, to which an officer is said to be a prey while
awaiting instructions, in consequence of the absence of General Saxton.
On the return of the general, in August, he was informed, to his
astonishment, of the ridiculous part which some mischievous persons had
taken in the St. Helena rumor, which surprised him more than the story
itself, he said.
On Monday, the 7th of August, he received the desired instructions,
which, for the time, definitely settled the position and duties
assigned, of which the following is a copy:--
HEADQUARTERS ASST. COMR. BUREAU REFUGEES,
FREEDMEN, AND ABANDONED LANDS, S. C., GEO., AND FL.,
BEAUFORT, S. C., August 7, 1865.
_Special Order. No. 3._
I. _Major M. R. Delany_, 104th United States Colored Troops,
is hereby detailed for duty in connection with the affairs
of freedmen, on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, and will
proceed thither at once.
The quartermaster’s department will furnish the necessary
transportation, and Major Delany will make a request upon the
post quartermaster at Hilton Head, South Carolina, for quarters.
By order of
Brevet Major General R. SAXTON,
_Assistant Commissioner_.
STUART M. TAYLOR, _Asst. Adj’t. Gen._
Major M. R. DELANY, _104th U. S. C. T._
Major Delany, armed with this authority, immediately set out for
Hilton Head: there he found Josiah W. Pillsbury, Esq., the brother of
the honored Parker Pillsbury, of the Anti-Slavery Society, on duty
as superintendent of freedmen’s affairs, under the old society’s
auspices, occupying a small, uncomfortable room, entirely unsuited to
the office held by him, the people being compelled to wait without for
want of space within, and attended from the only window in front. The
government in this, he said, “was probably doing as much as could be
expected for anything outside of its immediate control.”
His usual way to prepare or perfect himself in any new undertaking,
is to study attentively everything relating to his subject; for this
reason, while waiting for quarters suitable for the bureau’s purpose,
he attended daily the office of the freedmen.
Before assuming the duties of his office, he immediately went about
correcting many errors, suggesting and advising, as well as directing
other and better measures. For a class so recently emancipated, the
greater portion had many things to learn, as well as their oppressors;
and in many respects, like them, there was a great deal to unlearn.
Major Delany says, “The great social system was to them a novelty, and
without proper guidance would have been a curse instead of a blessing.
Unaccustomed to self-reliance by the barbarism of the system under
which they had lived, liberty was destined to lead them into errors. To
prevent this the bureau was established.”
He made the genius, habits, and peculiarities of the people he was over
his constant study, which, together with his unbounded popularity with
them, eminently fitted him for the position. Having a head and heart
well adapted to mete out guidance for the unlearned, and protection and
sympathy for the poor, the work under his management prospered to the
great gratification of its friends. He says in regard to this,--
“If a surgeon be called to attend the maimed or crippled, his object
first should be, if possible, to cure: when all remedies fail, as the
last resort, amputation as a treatment may then be resorted to. A
physician, who would act otherwise than that, would be called by the
profession a ‘quack,’ or ‘botch.’ As in the medical, so should it be in
military, legal, or civil jurisprudence. The object of appointment by
government is to have its ends subserved and objects accomplished. Thus
was the bureau established for protectional purposes.”
In trade and all kinds of dealings among the freedmen, the weakest
points were sought out and advantages taken by that means. He then
sought to defend them against these frauds and other impositions
practised upon them by persons using the magic word to them of
“_Yankee_;” or else, “friend of your people,” and, “I know no
difference between black and white,” &c. From these men his course
received much disapprobation, if not actual opposition. As this impeded
the progress of the work, he determined to accomplish by strategy that
which could not be done by direct attack. Through the generous courtesy
of the editor of the New South, the “official organ” at Hilton Head,
he succeeded. He communicated a series of articles, seven in number,
on domestic and political economy, conducive to the industry and labor
of the South. Some of them are here reproduced, to show his earnest
endeavors to facilitate the work of reorganization in the department
assigned him, as well as the fitness of the officer for the appointment.
I.
PROSPECTS OF THE FREEDMEN OF HILTON HEAD.
Every true friend of the Union, residing on the island,
must feel an interest in the above subject, regardless of
any other consideration than that of national polity. Have
the blacks become self-sustaining? and will they ever, in a
state of freedom, resupply the products which comprised the
staples formerly of the old planters? These are questions of
importance, and not unworthy of the consideration of grave
political economists.
That the blacks of the island have not been self-sustaining
will not be pretended, neither can it be denied that they have
been generally industrious and inclined to work. But industry
alone is not sufficient, nor work available, except these
command adequate compensation.
Have the blacks innately the elements of industry and
enterprise? Compare them with any other people, and note
their adaptation. Do they not make good “day laborers”? Are
they not good field hands? Do they not make good domestics?
Are they not good house servants? Do they not readily “turn
their hands” to anything or kind of work they may find to
do? Trained, they make good body servants, house servants,
or laundresses, waiters, chamber and dining-room servants,
cooks, nurses, drivers, horse “tenders,” and, indeed, fill as
well, and better, many of the domestic occupations than any
other race. And with unrestricted facilities for learning, will
it be denied that they are as susceptible of the mechanical
occupations or trades as they are of the domestic? Will it be
denied that a people easily domesticated are susceptible of
the higher attainments? The slaveholder, long since, cautioned
against “giving a nigger an inch, lest he should take an ell.”
If permitted, I will continue this subject in a series of
equally short articles, so as not to intrude on your columns.
II.
This subject must now he examined in the light of political
economy, and, for reasons stated in a previous article,
treated tersely in every sentence, and, therefore, will not be
condemned by the absence of elaboration and extensive proof.
America was discovered in 1492--then peopled only by the
original inhabitants, or Indians, as afterwards called. No
part of the country was found in a state of cultivation, and
no industrial enterprise was carried on, either foreign or
domestic. Not even in the West Indies--prolific with spices,
gums, dye-woods, and fruits--was there any trade carried on
among or by the natives. These people were put to labor by
the foreigners; but, owing to their former habits of hunting,
fishing, and want of physical exercise, they sank beneath the
weight of toil, fast dying off, till their mortality, in time,
from this cause alone, reached the frightful figure of two and
a half millions. (See Ramsay’s History.)
The whites were put to labor, and their fate was no
better--which requires no figures, as all are familiar with
the history and career of Thomas Gates and associates at one
time; John Smith and associates, as colonists in the South,
at another; how, not farther than Virginia,--at most, North
Carolina,--they “died like sheep,” to the destruction of the
settlements, in attempting to do the work required to improve
for civilized life. Neither whites, as foreigners, nor
Indians, as natives, were adequate to the task of performing
the labor necessary to their advent in the New World.
So early as 1502--but ten years after Columbus landed--“the
Spaniards commenced bringing a few negroes from Africa to work
the soil.” (See Ramsay’s History.) In 1515, but thirteen years
afterwards, and twenty-three from the discovery of America,
Carolus V., King of Spain, granted letters patent to import
annually into the colonies of Cuba, Ispaniola (Hayti), Jamaica,
and Porto Rico, four thousand Africans as slaves--people
contracted with to “emigrate” to these new colonies, as the
French, under Louis Napoleon, attempted, in 1858, to decoy
native Africans, under the pretext of emigrating to the
colonies, into French slavery, then reject international
interference, on the ground that they obtained them by
“voluntary emigration.”
Such was the success of this new industrial element, that not
only did Spaniards and Portuguese employ them in all their
American colonies, but so great was the demand for these
laborers, that Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen of England, became a
partner in the slave trade with the infamous Captain Hawkins;
and, in 1618, her successor to the throne, and royal relative,
James I., King of England, negotiated for and obtained the
entire carrying trade, thus securing, by international patent,
the exclusive right for British vessels alone to “traffic in
blood and souls of men,” to reap the profits arising from their
importation.
Was it the policy of political economists, such as were then
the rulers and statesmen of Europe, to employ a people in
preference to all others for the development of wealth, if
such people were not adapted to the labor designed for them?
Would the civilized and highly polished, such as were then
the Spanish, French, and Portuguese nations, together with
the English, still have continued the use of these people as
laborers and domestics in every social relation among them,
if they had not found them a most desirable domestic element?
Would, after the lapse of one hundred and sixteen years’
rigid trial and experience from their first importation, the
King of England have been able--whatever his avarice as an
individual--to have effected so great a diplomatic treaty, as
the consent from all the civilized nations having interests
here to people their colonies with a race if that race had
been worthless as laborers, and deficient as an industrial
element? Would, in the year of the grace of Jesus Christ, and
the light of the highest civilization, after the lapse of
two hundred and twenty years from James’s treaty, the most
powerful and enlightened monarchy have come near the crisis
of its political career in its determination to continue the
system, and for two hundred and forty-seven years, the most
powerful and enlightened republic that ever the world saw have
distracted the harmony of the nations of the earth, and driven
itself to the verge of destruction by the mad determination
of one half of the people and leading states, to perpetuate
the service of this race as essential to the development, of
the agricultural wealth of the land? After these centuries of
trial and experience, would these people have been continually
sought after, had they not proven to be superior to all others
as laborers in the kind of work assigned them? Let political
economists answer.
V.
As shown in my last article, these people are the lineal
descendants of an industrious, hardy race of men--those whom
the most powerful and accomplished statesmen and political
economists of the great states of Europe, after years of trial
and rigid experience, decided upon and selected as the element
best adapted to develop in a strange and foreign clime--a new
world of unbroken soil and dense, impenetrable forests--the
industry and labor necessary to the new life. This cannot
and will not be attempted to be denied without ignoring
all historical authority, though presented in a different
light--and may I not say motive?--from that in which history
has ever given it.
These people are of those to retain whom in her power the great
British nation was agitated to the point, at as late a period
as 1837-8, of shattering the basis of its political foundation;
and, within the last four years, the genius of the American
government was spurned, assaulted, and trampled upon, and had
come well nigh its final dissolution by full one half of the
states, people, and statesmen inaugurating a civil war, the
most stupendous on record, for no other purpose than retaining
them as laborers. Does any intelligent person doubt the utility
of such a people? Can such a people now be worthless in the
country? Does any enlightened, reflecting person believe it? I
think not.
But this is an experiment. Have we no precedent, no example?
What of the British colonies of the West Indies and South
America? Let impartial history and dispassionate, intelligent
investigation answer. The land in the colonies was owned by
wealthy capitalists and gentlemen who resided in Europe.
The “proprietors,” or planters, were occupants of the land,
who owned the slaves that worked it, having borrowed the
capital with which to purchase them at the Cuba markets or
barracoons and supply the plantations. In security for this,
mortgages were held by those in Europe on “all estate, real
and personal,” belonging to the planters, who paid a liberal
interest on the loans.
When the opposition in the British Parliament, led by Tories,
who were the representatives of the capitalists, yielded to the
Emancipation Bill, it was only on condition of an appropriation
of twenty millions of pounds sterling, or one hundred millions
of dollars, as remuneration to the planters for their slaves
set free. This proposition was so moderate as to surprise and
astonish the intelligent in state affairs on both sides of
the ocean, as the sum proposed only amounted to the penurious
price of about one hundred and twenty dollars apiece, when men
and women were then bringing at the barracoons in Cuba from
five to six hundred dollars apiece in cash; and the average of
men, women, and children, according to their estimate of black
mankind, were “worth” four hundred and fifty dollars. Of course
the tutored colonial laborer would be worth still more.
After the passage of the Act of Emancipation by the Imperial
Parliament, the complaint was wafted back by the breeze of
every passing wind, that the planters in the colonies were
impoverished by emancipation, and dishonest politicians and
defeated, morose statesmen seized the opportunity to display
their duplicity. “What will become of the fair colonial
possessions? The lands will go back into a wilderness waste.
The negroes are idle, lazy, and will not work. They are unfit
for freedom, and ought to have masters. Where they do work,
not half the crop is produced on the same quantity of land.
What will the whites do if they don’t get servants to work for
them? They and their posterity must starve. The lands are
lying waste for the want of occupants, and the negroes are
idling their time away, and will not have them when offered
to them. The social system in the West Indies has been ruined
by the emancipation of the negroes.” These, and a thousand
such complaints, tingled upon the sensitive ear in every word
that came from the British colonies, as the key-note of the
pro-slavery British party, till caught up and reëchoed from
the swift current of the southern extremity of Brazil to the
banks of the Potomac, the northern extremity of the slave
territory of the United States. But alive to passing events,
and true to their great trust, the philanthropists and people
soon discovered, through their eminent representatives and
statesmen in Parliament, that the whites in the colonies had
never owned the lands nor the blacks which they lost by the
Act of Emancipation. And when the appropriation was made by
Parliament, the money remained in the vaults of the banks in
Europe, being precisely the amount required to liquidate the
claims of the capitalists, and to satisfy the mortgages held by
those gentlemen against “all estates” of the borrowers in the
colonies, both “real and personal.”
The cause of the cry and clamor must be seen at a glance. The
money supposed to be intended for the colonists, small as it
was, instead of being appropriated to them, simply went to
satisfy the claims of the capitalists who resided in Great
Britain, not one out of a hundred of whom had ever seen the
colonies. And the lands being owned in Europe, and the Laborers
free, what was to save the white colonists from poverty? All
this was well known to leading pro-slavery politicians and
statesmen in Europe as well as America; but a determination
to perpetuate the bondage of a people as laborers--a people
so valuable as to cause them, rather than loose their grasp
upon them, to boldly hazard their national integrity, and set
at defiance the morality of the civilized world in holding
them--caused this reprehensible imposition and moral outrage in
misleading to distraction their common constituency.
VI.
Mr. Editor: This is my sixth article on the subject of the
“Prospects of the Freedmen of Hilton Head” Island, which you
have so generously admitted into the columns of The New South,
and for which liberality towards a recently liberated people,
I most heartily thank you. The time may come when they, for
themselves, may be able to thank you. I hope to conclude with
my next.
After what has been adduced in proof of their susceptibility,
adaptation, and propensity for the vocations of the domestic
and social relations of our civilization, what are their
_prospects_? for that now must be the leading question, and
give more concern to the philanthropist, true statesman, and
Christian, than anything relating to their fitness or innate
adaptation, since that I hold to be admitted, and no longer a
question--at least with the intelligent inquirer.
What should be the prospects? Will not the same labor that was
performed by a slave be in requisition still? Cannot he do the
same work as a freedman that he once did as a slave? Are the
products of slave labor preferable to free? or are the products
of free labor less valuable than slave? Will not rice and
cotton be in as great demand after emancipation as before it?
or will these commodities cease to be used, because they cease
to be produced by the labor of slaves? All these are questions
pertinent, if not potent, to the important inquiry under
consideration--the prospects of the freedmen of Hilton Head.
Certainly these things will be required, in demand, and labor
quite as plentiful; but not one half of the negroes can be
induced to work, as was proven in the West Indies, and is
apparent from the comparative number who now seek their old
vocations to those who formerly did the same work.
Grant this,--which is true,--and is it an objectionable
feature, or does it impair the prospects of the freedman? By
no means; but, on the contrary, it enhances his prospects
and elevates his manhood. Here, as in the case of West India
emancipation, before emancipation took place every available
person--male and female--from seven years of age to decrepit
old age (as field hands) was put into the field to labor.
For example, take one case to illustrate the whole. Before
liberated, Juba had a wife and eight children, from seven to
thirty years of age, every one of whom was at labor in the
field as a slave. When set free, the mother and all of the
younger children (consisting of five) quit the field, leaving
the father and three older sons, from twenty-five to thirty
years of age, who preferred field labor; the five children
being sent to school. The mother, now the pride of the
recently-elevated freedman, stays in her own house, to take
charge, as a housewife, in her new domestic relations--thus
permanently withdrawing from the field six tenths of the
service of this family; while the husband and three sons
(but four tenths) are all who remain to do the work formerly
performed by ten tenths, or the whole. Here are more than
one half who will not work in the field. Will any one say
they should? And this one example may suffice for the most
querulous on this subject. Human nature is all the same under
like circumstances. The immutable, unalterable laws which
governed or controlled the instincts or impulses of a Hannibal,
Alexander, or Napoleon, are the same implanted in the brain and
breast of page or footman, be he black or white, circumstances
alone making the difference in development according to the
individual propensity.
As slaves, people have no choice of pursuit or vocation, but
must follow that which is chosen by the master. Slaves, like
freemen, have different tastes and desires--many doing that
which is repugnant to their choice. As slaves, they were
compelled to subserve the interests of the master regardless
of themselves; as freemen, as should be expected and be
understood, many changes would take place in the labor and
pursuits of the people. Some who were field hands, among the
young men and women of mature age, seek employment at other
pursuits, and choose for themselves various trades--vocations
adapted to their tastes.
Will this be charged to the worthlessness of the negro, and
made an argument against his elevation? Truth stands defiant in
the pathway of error.
VII.
I propose to conclude the subject of “THE PROSPECTS OF THE
FREEDMEN OF HILTON HEAD” with this article, and believe that
the prospects of the one are the prospects of the whole
population of freedmen throughout the South.
Political economy must stand most prominent as the leading
feature of this great question of the elevation of the
negro--and it is a great question--in this country, because,
however humane and philanthropic, however Christian and
philanthropic we may be, except we can be made to see that
there is a prospective enhancement of the general wealth of the
country,--a pecuniary benefit to accrue by it to society,--the
best of us, whatever our pretensions, could scarcely be willing
to see him elevated in the United States.
Equality of political rights being the genius of the American
government, I shall not spend time with this, as great
principles will take care of themselves, and must eventually
prevail.
Will the negroes be able to obtain land by which to earn a
livelihood? Why should they not? It is a well-known fact to
the statisticians of the South that two thirds of the lands
have never been cultivated. These lands being mainly owned
by but three hundred and twelve thousand persons (according
to Helper)--one third of which was worked by four millions
of slaves, who are now freemen--what better can be done with
these lands to make them available and unburdensome to the
proprietors, than let them out in small tracts to the freedmen,
as well as to employ a portion of the same people, who prefer
it, to cultivate lands for themselves?
It is a fact--probably not so well known as it should be--in
political economy, that a given amount of means divided among a
greater number of persons, makes a wealthier community than the
same amount held or possessed by a few.
For example, there is a community of a small country village
of twenty families, the (cash) wealth of the community being
fifty thousand dollars, and but one family the possessor
of it; certainly the community would not be regarded as in
good circumstances, much less having available means. But
let this amount be possessed by ten families in sums of five
thousand dollars each, would not this enhance the wealth of
the community? And again, let the whole twenty families be in
possession of two thousand five hundred dollars each of the
fifty thousand, would not this be still a wealthier community,
by placing each family in easier circumstances, and making
these means much more available? Certainly it would. And as to
a community or village, so to a state; and as to a state, so to
a nation.
This is the solution to the great problem of the difference
between the strength of the North and the South in the late
rebellion--the North possessing the means within itself
without requiring outside help, almost every man being able
to aid the national treasury; everybody commanding means,
whether earned by a white-wash brush in black hands, or wooden
nutmegs in white: all had something to sustain the integrity
of the Union. It must be seen by this that the strength of
a country--internationally considered--depends greatly upon
its wealth; the wealth consisting not in the greatest amount
possessed, but the greatest available amount.
Let, then, such lands as belong to the government, by sale from
direct taxation, be let or sold to these freedmen, and other
poor loyal men of the South, in small tracts of from twenty to
forty acres to each head of a family, and large landholders
do the same,--the rental and sales of which amply rewarding
them,--and there will be no difficulty in the solution of the
problem of the future, or prospects of the freedmen, not only
of Hilton Head, but of the whole United States.
This increase of the wealth of the country by the greater
division of its means is not new to New England, nor to the
economists of the North generally. As in Pennsylvania, many
years ago, the old farmers commenced dividing their one hundred
and one hundred and fifty acre tracts of lands into twenty-five
acres each among their sons and daughters, who are known to
have realized more available means always among them--though
by far greater in numbers--than their parents did, who were
comparatively few. And it is now patent as an historic fact,
that, leaving behind them the extensive evergreen, fertile
plains, and savannas of the South, the rebel armies and
raiders continually sought the limited farms of the North to
replenish their worn-out cavalry stock and exhausted commissary
department--impoverished in cattle for food, and forage for
horses.
In the Path Valley of Pennsylvania, on a single march of a
radius of thirty-five miles of Chambersburg, Lee’s army,
besides all the breadstuffs that his three thousand five
hundred wagons (as they went empty for the purpose) were able
to carry, captured and carried off more than six thousand head
of stock, four thousand of which were horses. The wealth of
that valley alone, they reported, was more than India fiction,
and equal to all of the South put together. And whence this
mighty available wealth of Pennsylvania? Simply by its division
and possession among the many.
The Rothschilds are said to have once controlled the exchequer
of England, compelling (by implication) the premier to comply
with their requisition at a time of great peril to the nation,
simply because it depended upon them for means; and the same
functionaries are reported, during our recent struggle, to
have greatly annoyed the Bank of England, by a menace of some
kind, which immediately brought the institution to their terms.
Whether true or false, the points are sufficiently acute to
serve for illustration.
In the apportionment of small farms to the freedmen, an immense
amount of means is placed at their command, and thereby a
great market opened, a new source of consumption of every
commodity in demand in free civilized communities. The blacks
are great consumers, and four millions of a population,
before barefooted, would here make a demand for the single
article of shoes. The money heretofore spent in Europe by
the old slaveholders would be all disbursed by these new
people in their own country. Where but one cotton gin and a
limited number of farming utensils were formerly required to
the plantation of a thousand acres, every small farm will
want a gin and farming implements, the actual valuation
of which on the same tract of land would be several fold
greater than the other. Huts would give place to beautiful,
comfortable cottages, with all their appurtenances, fixtures,
and furniture; osnaburgs and rags would give place to genteel
apparel becoming a free and industrious people; and even the
luxuries, as well as the general comforts, of the table would
take the place of black-eye peas and fresh fish, hominy and
salt pork, all of which have been mainly the products of their
own labor when slaves. They would quickly prove that arduous
and faithfully fawning, miserable volunteer advocate of the
rebellion and slaveholder’s rule in the United States,--the
London Times,--an arrant falsifier, when it gratuitously
and unbidden came to the aid of its kith and kin, declaring
that the great and good President Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation would not be accepted by the negroes; “that all
Cuffee wanted and cared for to make him happy was his hog and
his hominy;” but they will neither get land, nor will the
old slaveholders give them employment. Don’t fear any such
absurdity. There are too many political economists among the
old leading slaveholders to fear the adoption of any such
policy. Neither will the leading statesmen of the country, of
any part, North or South, favor any such policy.
We have on record but one instance of such a course in the
history of modern states. The silly-brained, foolhardy king of
France, Louis V., taking umbrage at the political course of the
artisans and laborers against him, by royal decree expelled
them from the country, when they flocked into England, which
readily opened her doors to them, transplanting from France to
England their arts and industry; ever since which, England, for
fabrics, has become the “workshop of the world,” to the poverty
of France, the government of which is sustained by borrowed
capital.
No fears of our country driving into neighboring countries such
immense resources as emanate from the peculiar labor of these
people; but when worst comes to worst, they have among them
educated freemen of their own color North, fully competent to
lead the way, by making negotiations with foreign states on
this continent, which would only be too ready to receive them
and theirs.
Place no impediment in the way of the freedman; let his right
be equally protected and his chances be equally regarded,
and with the facts presented to you in this series of seven
articles as the basis, he will stand and thrive, as firmly
rooted, not only on the soil of Hilton Head, but in all the
South,--though a black,--as any white, or “Live Oak,” as ever
was grown in South Carolina, or transplanted to Columbia.
These articles were published from September to December consecutively,
with two weekly exceptions, until the command of the department
was assumed by Major General Daniel E. Sickles. They were formerly
published anonymously: until then the major was not at liberty to
exercise the full functions of his office as a representative of the
bureau, as more would be accomplished by concealing the author’s name.
Feeling free from a restraint which, while it may have been enjoyed by
others, was distasteful to him, at last he ventured for the first time
to give official publicity to these articles, as will be seen by the
following letter:--
_Triple Alliance.--The Restoration of the South.--Salvation of
its Political Economy._
The restoration of the industrial prosperity of the South
is _certain_, if fixed upon the basis of a domestic triple
alliance, which the new order of things requires, invites, and
demands.
Capital, land, and labor require a copartnership. The capital
can be obtained in the North; the land is in the South, owned
by the old planters; and the blacks have the labor. Let, then,
the North supply the capital (which no doubt it will do on
demand, when known to be desired on this basis), the South
the land (which is ready and waiting), and the blacks will
readily bring the labor, if only being assured that their
services are wanted in so desirable an association of business
relations, the net profits being equally shared between the
three,--capital, land, and labor,--each receiving one third,
of course. The _net_ has reference to the expenses incurred
after gathering the crop, such as transportation, storage, and
commission on sales.
Upon this basis I propose to act, and make contracts between
the capitalist, landholder, and laborer, and earnestly invite,
and call upon all colored people,--the recent freedmen,--also
capitalists and landholders within the limits of my district,
to enter at once into a measure the most reasonable and just
to all parties concerned, and the very best that can be adopted
to meet the demands of the new order and state of society, as
nothing can pay better where the blacks cannot get land for
themselves.
I am at liberty to name Rev. Dr. Stoney (Episcopal clergyman),
Joseph J. Stoney, Esq., Dr. Crowell, Colonel Colcock (late
of the Southern army)--all the first gentlemen formerly of
wealth and affluence in the State; and Major Roy, of the United
States Regular Army, Inspector General of the department;
Colonel Green, commanding district, and Lieutenant Colonel
Clitz, commanding post, also of the regular army, each having
friends interested in planting, who readily indorse this new
partnership arrangement. Of course it receives the approval of
Major General Saxton.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
Your most obedient servant,
M. R. DELANY,
_Major & A. S. A. Commissioner Bureau R. F. A. L._
HILTON HEAD, December 7, 1865.
The planters of the islands and upland districts, recognizing the
advantages of the bureau in their midst, when conducted by an efficient
officer, consulted him when occasion required.
Among them was Colonel Colcock, with whom he had, on one occasion,
an extended interview, previous to the publication of the foregoing
article, in which interview the following resulted:--
HILTON HEAD, December 8, 1865.
Major M. R. DELANY, _A. S. A. C. Bureau R. F. A. L._
Major: I wish to employ sixty laborers on my homestead place
on Colleton River, and two hundred on Spring Island, and
will thank you to engage them for me, on the basis of the
contract which I showed you on Friday. In engaging labor,
you will please give the preference to the freedmen who
formerly resided on these islands, provided there is nothing
objectionable in their character.
Try to arrange it so that each family will average three field
hands, as I have house-room to accommodate them on that basis.
Yours respectfully,
C. J. COLCOCK.
HEADQUARTERS BUREAU R. F. A. L.,
HILTON HEAD, S. C., December 11, 1865.
Colonel C. J. COLCOCK, _late of the Southern Army_.
Colonel: I received your communication on Saturday last,
desiring to know whether or not two hundred and sixty laborers,
or cultivators, can be obtained on the basis of copartnership
of capital, land, and labor, or what I term the domestic triple
alliance, embracing a series of articles drawn up by yourself,
as the conditions of your contract.
I reply most positively, that you may confidently rely upon
such aid in your business arrangements, as the people are
waiting, ready and willing, to consummate such contracts as
this plan proposes, alike advantageous to all the parties
interested.
I may here be permitted to suggest in this connection, that
there are generosity and liberality of feeling in the North
towards the South, in its present position, scarcely believed
by southern people; and all the North asks is, that their
neighbors be disposed to do right, and they may obtain anything
in reason, financially, that is desirable.
I have taken the liberty to suggest several modifications
in the articles of agreement which you present, to prevent
misconstruction or ambiguity, and added one more article, which
I consider important (Art. 14). I name this, that it may not be
thought that you have assumed to prescribe what should suit the
people, but that the injunction of frugality and economy may
come from themselves, through their own representative.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, yours,
M. R. DELANY,
_Major and A. S. A. C._