_Boston, July 8._ Your long letter has received due attention, but I
do not yet feel as if it would be advisable to sell lands any sooner
than I had always intended, viz., at the end of the war. I agree with
you that the present system is unsatisfactory and annoying, tending to
develop the evil as well as the good that is in the negro character. I
had about concluded to propose next winter something like the
following plan, but don't think it good policy to promise _anything_
now for two reasons: first, such promises would be distorted and
misrepresented by the negroes among themselves in the interim, so
that when the time comes, nothing but dissatisfaction and growling
would result; second, because something may turn up in the meantime to
change my mind as to what is best. My rough plan is to sell to the
people at cost all live-stock and implements we could spare,--nearly
the whole,--for which they can doubtless pay cash next winter. Then
divide the lands among them to be used as they see fit for the
remainder of the war, they to pay either a certain share of the cotton
they raise, say one half, or a certain amount of cotton, annually.
(Don't like this last.) A small farm to be reserved on large
plantations to be sold to or worked by some white settler, who can
devote his time there and act as our agent to look after our rights,
and if possible work a little cotton on his own account, experimenting
and introducing improved methods of culture. It might be almost
impossible for such a man to get labor, but there will be some negroes
too dependent in their habits to want to wait a year for their pay and
some old people and widows who would prefer wages paid monthly. This
white man's farm is, however, not a necessary part of the plan, and if
labor can't be got, of course it wouldn't succeed. Teachers and
store-keepers to be kept on the ground at our expense, who will look
after the houses they live in and do whatever else they can to keep
things straight.
Another plan is to sell life-leases to the negroes, instead of the fee
simple, disposing of the lands you propose to sell. This occurred to
me as a means of avoiding the terrible and disastrous confusion which
it will be next to impossible to avoid after a term of years, if the
fee should be conveyed, when the purchasers die and sell or change
land as they will to a certain extent in time. It is bad enough to
trace a title and find out whether it is good for anything here in
systematic New England, and difficult enough, too, to fix boundaries
and maintain them against encroachments; but it makes my orderly bones
ache to think of a time when, after some men now purchasing land shall
die, leaving two or three sets of children, some born under wedlock
and some not, some not their own but their wives' children, some even
of questionable parentage, and some who were never heard of before,
all claiming a slice of the deceased man's land, and of course all
claiming the best. Suppose it was bounded by a "stake and stones" as
of old here, minus the stones which are absent; suppose some of the
claimants think best to set up a new stake where one has gone to
decay, and suppose they are not over exact in placing it; or suppose,
as is more than likely, their neighbor thinks the new stake encroaches
on him and pulls it up entirely, stamping on the hole and putting it
in according to his own ideas, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Now, as you
must admit that all this is likely to occur, and worse too, would such
a state of things tend to bring about a healthy and rapid development?
Any one who has watched the minute subdivision of lands among the
French peasantry knows that after a few generations a man has not land
enough to live on or work economically, and hence a vast amount of
time and energy is wasted in France for lack of organization;--that,
too, where they have an administration of justice the most minute and
exact to be found in the whole world, an organization of the judiciary
which reaches to every man's case, however minute or inconspicuous.
The life-lease system would avoid these troubles, but would be open
to this objection, a serious one, too, viz., the negro ought to feel
that in building up a home for himself, it shall be a home for his
children, for he has too little of the feeling of responsibility for
his offspring, which is one of the best stimulants to good order and
civilization.
The future value of the lands is a question I don't think of much
consequence, neither is the question of profit to the present holders
to be considered, when conflicting with the future welfare of the
community. If we only had clearness of vision, the wisdom to see what
would really be best for the masses, I sincerely believe that it could
readily be adopted without in any way prejudicing the present profits
of the holders. You speak of the probability of having less cotton
planted for us in case your plan is followed. I shouldn't consider
that of _any consequence whatever_, except that, as a general thing,
the amount of cotton planted will always be a pretty sure index of the
state of industry of the people, and their industry will always be the
best measure of their improvement. It might take them some time to
find out that cotton was the best thing for them to work on, but
present prices are fast teaching them this fact.
The objection noted above against a life-lease is a serious one, and
perhaps sufficient to balance those future annoyances likely to grow
out of selling the fee.
I do not agree with you in what you say of the _unnatural_ dependence
of these people. I don't see any people on the face of the earth of
their rank in civilization who are so independent as they are.
I don't see the justice of the claim to the soil now made in their
behalf by Mr. J. A. Saxton[169] and others, and with which you seem to
sympathize somewhat. The fact is that no race of men on God's earth
ever acquired the right to the soil on which they stand without more
vigorous exertions than these people have made. This is apparently the
wise order of Providence as a means of discipline, or the misfortune
of man, as a consequence of his failings, perhaps both; but I cannot
see why these people should be excepted from the general rule. If they
_have_ acquired the necessary qualifications to be benefited by
becoming landholders, then there is no reason for delay; but here is
the very point of difference between us, whether they would be in the
long run so benefited.
As to price, I never considered the question of profit to myself or
those I represent as of consequence in fixing the price. It is no
doubt an expression of this kind which gave rise to the general
belief, claimed by some whites as well as blacks, that I would sell at
cost, "was bound" to do so, etc. It did not occur to those who so
believed that I could have any good or disinterested reasons for
selling for more than cost. It may be difficult to fathom one's own
motives in such cases, but I can say honestly that I do not believe in
the success of a system of selling to any people any property whatever
for less than its market value, with a view to confer a lasting
benefit upon them. That is, I think the immediate ease which such a
course would confer would beget idleness and unthrifty habits when
compared with a system by which every man should be required to pay
full price. No man or race of men ever truly appreciate freedom who do
not fight for it, and no man appreciates property who does not work
for it, on the same terms with those around him. I think they would be
better off for paying ten dollars an acre for land, if the land is
worth it, rather than one dollar, because they would use the land for
which they had paid full price more economically, would be likely to
get more out of it, and would be taught a feeling of independence more
readily than by being made the recipients of charity.
In this case, however, we have a complication of circumstances
entirely unique. We have a number of people who have bought land at a
rate fixed by Government, and a certain amount of "discouragement"
would ensue if our people were charged more per acre than their
neighbors for similar land. They couldn't be expected to see the
justice of such an arrangement, and it is difficult for us to explain
why it should be so. This is a very strong argument for selling cheap,
for we should avoid any course which we should not be able to easily
prove just, when dealing with such a defenceless people. Of course
there would be a grand howl among the so-called philanthropists at the
mention of any plan on my part of selling at any rate above cost,
witness the sensation produced by my letter to the _Evening Post_; but
I don't care much for that, and ought not to care at all. We couldn't
sell the land as you propose[170] without calling forth a similar
howl from this sickly sympathy, which would have me sell all the land
and would accuse me of a tendency to aristocracy if I retained any
lands to be disposed of otherwise. Of course the negroes wouldn't be
satisfied either. I don't expect to satisfy them by any course which
would be consistent with common sense. I think it possible that I may
fall into such a plan as you suggest after I get down there next
winter. In the meantime I don't want to make any promises.
The next three letters are full of the irritation engendered
by unintelligent orders from official superiors.