University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER I

FINDING A PLACE OF REFUGE

THE migration of the blacks from the Southern
States to those offering them better
opportunities is nothing new. The objective
here, therefore, will be not merely to present the
causes and results of the recent movement of
the Negroes to the North but to connect this
event with the periodical movements of the
blacks to that section, from about the year 1815
to the present day. That this movement should
date from that period indicates that the policy
of the commonwealths towards the Negro must
have then begun decidedly to differ so as to
make one section of the country more congenial
to the despised blacks than the other. As a
matter of fact, to justify this conclusion, we
need but give passing mention here to developments
too well known to be discussed in detail.
Slavery in the original thirteen States was the
normal condition of the Negroes. When, however,
James Otis, Patrick Henry and Thomas
Jefferson began to discuss the natural rights of
the colonists, then said to be oppressed by Great
Britain, some of the patriots of the Revolution
carried their reasoning to its logical conclusion,
contending that the Negro slaves should be

freed on the same grounds, as their rights were
also founded in the laws of nature.[1] And so it
was soon done in most Northern commonwealths.

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts
exterminated the institution by constitutional
provision and Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania by
gradual emancipation acts.[2] And it was thought
that the institution would soon thereafter pass
away even in all southern commonwealths except
South Carolina and Georgia, where it had
seemingly become profitable. There came later
the industrial revolution following the invention
of "Watt's steam engine and mechanical appliances
like Whitney's cotton gin, all which
changed the economic aspect of the modern
world, making slavery an institution offering
means of exploitation to those engaged in the
production of cotton. This revolution rendered
necessary a large supply of cheap labor for cotton
culture, out of which the plantation system
grew. The Negro slaves, therefore, lost all hope
of ever winning their freedom in South Carolina
and Georgia; and in Maryland, Virginia,
and North Carolina, where the sentiment in
favor of abolition had been favorable, there was

a decided reaction which soon blighted their
hopes.[3] In the Northern commonwealths, however,
the sentiment in behalf of universal freedom,
though at times dormant, was ever apparent
despite the attachment to the South of
the trading classes of northern cities, which
profited by the slave trade and their commerce
with the slaveholding States. The Northern
States maintaining this liberal attitude developed,
therefore, into an asylum for the Negroes
who were oppressed in the South.

The Negroes, however, were not generally
welcomed in the North. Many of the northerners
who sympathized with the oppressed
blacks in the South never dreamt of having them
as their neighbors. There were, consequently,
always two classes of anti-slavery people, those
who advocated the abolition of slavery to elevate
the blacks to the dignity of citizenship, and
those who merely hoped to exterminate the institution
because it was an economic evil.[4] The
latter generally believed that the blacks constituted
an inferior class that could not discharge
the duties of citizenship, and when the proposal
to incorporate the blacks into the body politic
was clearly presented to these agitators their
anti-slavery ardor was decidedly dampened.
Unwilling, however, to take the position that a

race should be doomed because of personal objections,
many of the early anti-slavery group
looked toward colonization for a solution of this
problem.[5] Some thought of Africa, but since
the deportation of a large number of persons
who had been brought under the influence of
modern civilization seemed cruel, the most popular
colonization scheme at first seemed to be
that of settling the Negroes on the public lands
in the West. As this region had been lately
ceded, however, and no one could determine
what use could be made of it by white men, no
such policy was generally accepted.

When this territory was ceded to the United
States an effort to provide for the government
of it finally culminated in the proposed Ordinance
of 1784 carrying the provision that slavery
should not exist in the Northwest Territory
after the year 1800.[6] This measure finally
failed to pass and fortunately too, thought some,
because, had slavery been given sixteen years
of growth on that soil, it might not have been
abolished there until the Civil War or it might
have caused such a preponderance of slave
commonwealths as to make the rebellion successful.
The Ordinance of 1784 was antecedent
to the more important Ordinance of 1787, which
carried the famous sixth article that neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a

punishment for crime should exist in that territory.
At first, it was generally deemed feasible
to establish Negro colonies on that domain.
Yet despite the assurance of the Ordinance of
1787 conditions were such that one could not
determine exactly whether the Northwest Territory
would be slave or free.[7]

What then was the situation in this partly unoccupied
territory! Slavery existed in what is
now the Northwest Territory from the time of
the early exploration and settlement of that region
by the French. The first slaves of white
men were Indians. Though it is true that the
red men usually chose death rather than slavery,
there were some of them that bowed to the yoke.
So many Pawnee Indians became bondsmen
that the word Pani became synonymous with
slave in the West.[8] Western Indians themselves,
following the custom of white men, enslaved
their captives in war rather than choose
the alternative of putting them to death. In
this way they were known to hold a number of
blacks and whites.

The enslavement of the black man by the
whites in this section dates from the early part
of the eighteenth century. Being a part of the
Louisiana Territory which under France extended
over the whole Mississippi Valley as far
as the Allegheny mountains, it was governed
by the same colonial regulations.[9] Slavery,
therefore, had legal standing in this territory.
When Antoine Crozat, upon being placed in control
of Louisiana, was authorized to begin a
traffic in slaves, Crozat himself did nothing to
carry out his plan. But in 1717 when the control
of the colony was transferred to the Compagnie
de I'Occident steps were taken toward the importation
of slaves. In 1719, when 500 Guinea
Negroes were brought over to serve in Lower
Louisiana, Philip Francis Renault imported 500
other bondsmen into Upper Louisiana or what
was later included in the Northwest Territory.
Slavery then became more and more extensive
until by 1750 there were along the Mississippi
five settlements of slaves, Kaskaskia, Kaokia,
Fort Chartres, St. Phillipe and Prairie du
Rocher.[10] In 1763 Negroes were relatively

numerous in the Northwest Territory but when
this section that year was transferred to the
British the number was diminished by the action
of those Frenchmen who, unwilling to become
subjects of Great Britain, moved from the territory.[11]
There was no material increase in the
slave population thereafter until the end of the
eighteenth century when some Negroes came
from the original thirteen.

The Ordinance of 1787 did not disturb the relation
of slave and master. Some pioneers
thought that the sixth article exterminated slavery
there; others contended that it did not. The
latter believed that such expressions in the Ordinance
of 1787 as the "free inhabitants" and
the "free male inhabitants of full size" implied
the continuance of slavery and others found
ground for its perpetuation in that clause of the
Ordinance which allowed the people of the territory
to adopt the constitution and laws of any
one of the thirteen States. Students of law
saw protection for slavery in Jay's treaty which
guaranteed to the settlers their property of all
kinds.[12] When, therefore, the slave question
came up in the Northwest Territory about the
close of the eighteenth century, there were three
classes of slaves: first, those who were in. servitude
to French owners previous to the cession
of the Territory to England and were still
claimed as property in the possession of which
the owners were protected under the treaty of
1763; second, those who were held by British
owners at the time of Jay's treaty and claimed
afterward as property under its protection; and
third, those who, since the Territory had been
controlled by the United States, had been
brought from the commonwealths in which slavery

was allowed.[13] Freedom, however, was
recognized as the ultimate status of the Negro
in that territory.

This question having been seemingly settled,
Anthony Benezet, who for years advocated the
abolition of slavery and devoted his time and
means to the preparation of the Negroes for
living as freedmen, was practical enough to
recommend to the Congress of the Confederation
a plan of colonizing the emancipated blacks
on the western lands.[14] Jefferson incorporated
into his scheme for a modern system of public
schools the training of the slaves in industrial
and agricultural branches to equip them for a
higher station in life. He believed, however,
that the blacks not being equal to the white race
should not be assimilated and should they be
free, they should, by all means, be colonized
afar off.[15] Thinking that the western lands
might be so used, he said in writing to James
Monroe in 1801: "A very great extent of country
north of the Ohio has been laid off in townships,
and is now at market, according to the
provisions of the act of Congress. . . . There
is nothing," said he, "which would restrain the
State of Virginia either in the purchase or the

application of these lands."[16] Yet he raised the
question as to whether the establishment of such
a colony within our limits and to become a part
of the Union would be desirable. He thought
then of procuring a place beyond the limits of
the United States on our northern boundary,
by purchasing the Indian lands with the consent
of Great Britain. He then doubted that the black
race would live in such a rigorous climate.

This plan did not easily pass from the minds
of the friends of the slaves, for in 1805 Thomas
Brannagan asserted in his Serious Remonstrances
that the government should appropriate
a few thousand acres of land at some distant
part of the national domains for the Negroes'
accommodation and support. He believed
that the new State might be established
upwards of 2,000 miles from our frontier.[17] A
copy of the pamphlet containing this proposition
was sent to Thomas Jefferson, who was impressed
thereby, but not having the courage to
brave the torture of being branded as a friend
of the slave, he failed to give it his support.[18]
The same question was brought prominently before
the public again in 1816 when there was
presented to the House of Representatives a
memorial from the Kentucky Abolition Society
praying that the free people of color be colonized

on the public lands. The committee to whom
the memorial was referred for consideration
reported that it was expedient to refuse the request
on the ground that, as such lands were not
granted to free white men, they saw no reason
for granting them to others.[19]

Some Negro slaves unwilling to wait to be
carried or invited to the Northwest Territory
escaped to that section even when it was controlled
by the French prior to the American
Revolution. Slaves who reached the West by
this route caused trouble between the French
and the British colonists. Advertising in 1746
for James Wenyam, a slave, Richard Colgate,
his master, said that he swore to a Negro whom
he endeavored to induce to go with him, that he
had often been in the backwoods with his master
and that he would go to the French and Indians
and fight for them.[20] In an advertisement
for a mulatto slave in 1755 Thomas Ringold,
his master, expressed fear that he had escaped
by the same route to the French. He,
therefore, said: "It seems to be the interest, at
least, of every gentleman that has slaves, to be
active in the beginning of these attempts, for
whilst we have the French such near neighbors,
we shall not have the least security in that kind
of property."[21]

The good treatment which these slaves received
among the French, and especially at
Pittsburgh the gateway to the Northwest Territory,
tended to make that city an asylum for
those slaves who had sufficient spirit of adventure
to brave the wilderness through which
they had to go. Negroes even then had the idea
that there was in this country a place of more
privilege than those they enjoyed in the seaboard
colonies. Knowing of the likelihood of
the Negroes to rise during the French and Indian
War, Governor Dinwiddie wrote Fox one
of the Secretaries of State in 1756: "We dare
not venture to part with any of our white men
any distance, as we must have a watchful eye
over our Negro slaves, who are upward of one
hundred thousand."[22] Brissot de Warville
mentions in his Travels of 1788 several examples
of marriages of white and blacks in
Pittsburgh. He noted the case of a Negro who
married an indentured French servant woman.
Out of this union came a desirable mulatto girl
who married a surgeon of Nantes then stationed
at Pittsburgh. His family was considered one
of the most respectable of the city. The Negro
referred to was doing a creditable business and
his wife took it upon herself to welcome foreigners,
especially the French, who came that
way. Along the Ohio also there were several
cases of women of color living with unmarried

white men; but this was looked upon by the Negroes
as detestable as was evidenced by the fact
that, if black women had a quarrel with a mulatto
woman, the former would reproach the
latter for being of ignoble blood.[23]

These tendencies, however, could not assure
the Negro that the Northwest Territory was to
be an asylum for freedom when in 1763 it passed
into the hands of the British, the promoters of
the slave trade, and later to the independent colonies,
two of which had no desire to exterminate
slavery. Furthermore, when the Ordinance of
1787 with its famous sixth article against slavery
was proclaimed, it was soon discovered that
this document was not necessarily emancipatory.
As the right to hold slaves was guaranteed
to those who owned them prior to the
passage of the Ordinance of 1787, it was to be
expected that those attached to that institution
would not indifferently see it pass away. Various
petitions, therefore, were sent to the territorial
legislature and to Congress praying that
the sixth article of the Ordinance of 1787 be abrogated.[24]
No formal action to this effect was
taken, but the practice of slavery was continued
even at the winking of the government. Some
slaves came from the Canadians who, in accordance
with the slave trade laws of the British

Empire, were supplied with bondsmen. It was
the Canadians themselves who provided by act
of parliament in 1793 for prohibiting the importation
of slaves and for gradual emancipation.
When it seemed later that the cause of freedom
would eventually triumph the proslavery element
undertook to perpetuate slavery through
a system of indentured servant labor.

In the formation of the States of Indiana and
Illinois the question as to what should be done
to harmonize with the new constitution the system
of indenture to which the territorial legislatures
had been committed, caused heated debate
and at times almost conflict. Both Indiana[25]
and Illinois[26] finally incorporated into

their constitutions compromise provisions for
a nominal prohibition of slavery modified by
clauses for the continuation of the system of indentured
labor of the Negroes held to service.
The proslavery party persistently struggled
for some years to secure by the interpretation
of the laws, by legislation and even by amending
the constitution so to change the fundamental
law as to provide for actual slavery.
These States, however, gradually worked toward
freedom in keeping with the spirit of the majority
who framed the constitution, despite the
fact that the indenture system in southern Illinois
and especially in Indiana was at times tantamount
to slavery as it was practiced in parts
of the South.

It must be home in mind here, however, that
the North at this time was far from becoming a
place of refuge for Negroes. In the first place,
the industrial revolution had not then had time
to reduce the Negroes to the plane of beasts in
the cotton kingdom. The rigorous climate and
the industries of the northern people, moreover,
were not inviting to the blacks and the development
of the carrying trade and the rise of
manufacturing there did not make that section

more attractive to unskilled labor. Furthermore,
when we consider the fact that there were
many thousands of Negroes in the Southern
States the presence of a few in the North must
be regarded as insignificant. This paucity of
blacks then obtained especially in the Northwest
Territory, for its French inhabitants instead
of being an exploiting people were pioneering,
having little use for slaves in carrying out
their policy of merely holding the country for
France. Moreover, like certain gentlemen from
Virginia, who after the American Revolution
were afraid to bring their slaves with them to
occupy their bounty lands in Ohio, few enterprising
settlers from the slave States had invaded
the territory with their Negroes, not
knowing whether or not they would be secure
in the possession of such property. When we
consider that in 1810 there were only 102,137
Negroes in the North and no more than 3,454 in
the Northwest Territory, we must look to the
second decade of the nineteenth century for the
beginning of the migration of the Negroes in
the United States.