Part 2 (1/2)
Some of the planters with whom I had occasion to converse expressed their determination to adopt the course which best accords with the spirit of free labor, to make the negro work by offering him fair inducements, to stimulate his ambition, and to extend to him those means of intellectual and moral improvement which are best calculated to make him an intelligent, reliable and efficient free laborer and a good and useful citizen. Those who expressed such ideas were almost invariably professed Union men, and far above the average in point of mental ability and culture. I found a very few instances of original secessionists also manifesting a willingness to give the free-labor experiment a fair trial.
I can represent the sentiments of this small cla.s.s in no better way than by quoting the language used by an Alabama judge in a conversation with me. ”I am one of the most thoroughly whipped men in the south,” said he; ”I am a genuine old secessionist, and I believe now, as I always did, we had the const.i.tutional right to secede. But the war has settled that matter, and it is all over now. As to this thing of free negro labor, I do not believe in it, but I will give it a fair trial. I have a plantation and am going to make contracts with my hands, and then I want a real Yankee to run the machine for me; not one of your New Yorkers or Pennsylvanians, but the genuine article from Ma.s.sachusetts or Vermont--one who can not only farm, but sing psalms and pray, and teach school--a real abolitionist, who believes in the thing just as I don't believe in it. If he does not succeed, I shall consider it proof conclusive that you are wrong and I am right.”
I regret to say that views and intentions so reasonable I found confined to a small minority. Aside from the a.s.sumption that the negro will not work without physical compulsion, there appears to be another popular notion prevalent in the south, which stands as no less serious an obstacle in the way of a successful solution of the problem. It is that the negro exists for the special object of raising cotton, rice and sugar _for the whites_, and that it is illegitimate for him to indulge, like other people, in the pursuit of his own happiness in his own way. Although it is admitted that he has ceased to be the property of a master, it is not admitted that he has a right to become his own master. As Colonel Thomas, a.s.sistant commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau in Mississippi, in a letter addressed to me, very pungently expresses it: ”The whites esteem the blacks their property by natural right, and, however much they may admit that the relations of masters and slaves have been destroyed by the war and by the President's emanc.i.p.ation proclamation, they still have an ingrained feeling that the blacks at large belong to the whites at large, and whenever opportunity serves, they treat the colored people just as their profit, caprice or pa.s.sion may dictate.” (Accompanying doc.u.ment No.
27.) An ingrained feeling like this is apt to bring forth that sort of cla.s.s legislation which produces laws to govern one cla.s.s with no other view than to benefit another. This tendency can be distinctly traced in the various schemes for regulating labor which here and there see the light.
Immediately after the emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves, when the general confusion was most perplexing, the prevalent desire among the whites seemed to be, if they could not retain their negroes as slaves, to get rid of them entirely. Wild speculations were indulged in, how to remove the colored population at once and to import white laborers to fill its place; how to obtain a sufficient supply of coolies, &c., &c. Even at the present moment the removal of the freedmen is strongly advocated by those who have the traditional horror of a free negro, and in some sections, especially where the soil is more adapted to the cultivation of cereals than the raising of the staples, planters appear to be inclined to drive the negroes away, at least from their plantations. I was informed by a prominent South Carolinian in July, that the planters in certain localities in the northwestern part of his State had been on the point of doing so, but better counsel had been made to prevail upon them; and Colonel Robinson, 97th United States Colored Infantry, who had been sent out to several counties in southern Alabama to administer the amnesty oath, reported a general disposition among the planters of that region to ”set the colored people who had cultivated their crops during the summer, adrift as soon as the crops would be secured, and not to permit the negro to remain upon any footing of equality with the white man in that country.” (Accompanying doc.u.ment No. 28.) The disposition to drive away all the negroes from the plantations was undoubtedly confined to a few districts; and as far as the scheme of wholesale deportation is concerned, practical men became aware, that if they wanted to have any labor done, it would have been bad policy to move away the laborers they now have before others were there to fill their places. All these devices promising at best only distant relief, and free negro labor being the only thing in immediate prospect, many ingenious heads set about to solve the problem, how to make free labor compulsory by permanent regulations.
Shortly after the close of the war some South Carolina planters tried to solve this problem by introducing into the contracts provisions leaving only a small share of the crops to the freedmen, subject to all sorts of constructive charges, and then binding them to work off the indebtedness they might incur. It being to a great extent in the power of the employer to keep the laborer in debt to him, the employer might thus obtain a permanent hold upon the person of the laborer. It was something like the system of peonage existing in Mexico. When these contracts were submitted to the military authorities for ratification, General Hatch, commanding at Charleston, at once issued an order prohibiting such arrangements. I had an opportunity to examine one of these contracts, and found it drawn up with much care, and evidently with a knowledge of the full bearings of the provisions so inserted.
Appended to this report is a memorandum of a conversation I had with Mr.
W. King, of Georgia, a gentleman of good political sentiments and undoubtedly benevolent intentions. He recommends a kind of guardians.h.i.+p to be exercised by the employer over the freedman. He is a fair representative, not of the completely unprejudiced, but of the more liberal-minded cla.s.s of planters, and his sayings show in what direction even those who are not actuated by any spirit of bitterness against the negro, seek a way out of their perplexities. (Accompanying doc.u.ment No.
29.)
I annex also two doc.u.ments submitted to Mr. Benjamin F. Flanders, special treasury agent at New Orleans, who then had the management of freedmen's affairs in Louisiana, in November and December, 1864. They are not of a recent date, but may be taken as true representations of the ideas and sentiments entertained by large numbers to-day. The first (accompanying doc.u.ment No. 30) contains ”suggestions on the wants of planters before embarking their capital in the cultivation of staple crops,” and was submitted by a committee to a meeting of planters at New Orleans, November 21, 1864. It speaks for itself. The others (accompanying doc.u.ment No. 31) is a letter addressed to Mr. Flanders by Mr. T. Gibson, a Louisiana planter, who is well known in New Orleans as professing much affection for the negro. It commences with the a.s.sertion that he ”has no prejudices to overcome, and would do the black all the good in his power,” and winds up with a postscript strongly insisting upon the necessity of corporal punishment, the ”great desideratum in obtaining labor from free blacks being _its enforcement_.”
MUNIc.i.p.aL REGULATIONS.
The motives and spirit bringing forth such ideas found a still clearer expression in some attempted munic.i.p.al regulations. In no State within the range of my observation had, at the time of my visit, so much progress been made in the reorganization of local government as in Louisiana. In most of the parishes the parish authorities had exercised their functions for some time; in others the organization was less complete. Governor Wells informed me that he had filled the parish offices with men recommended to him by the people of the parishes, and it is fair to a.s.sume that in most cases the appointees represented the views and sentiments of the ruling cla.s.s. Some of the local authorities so appointed furnished us an indication of the principles upon which they thought it best to regulate free labor within their jurisdiction.
Mr. W.B. Stickney, agent of the Freedmen's Bureau at Shreveport, Louisiana, reported to the a.s.sistant commissioner of the bureau in Louisiana as follows: ”August 1.--The following is a literal copy of a doc.u.ment brought to this office by a colored man, which is conclusive evidence that there are those who still claim the negro as their property:
”'This boy Calvin has permit to hire to whom he pleases, but I shall hold him as my property until set free by Congress. July 7, 1865. (Signed.) E.V. TULLY.'”
The spirit of the above also made its appearance in another form, in the action of the police board of the parish of Bossier, which was an attempt to revive at once the old slave laws, and to prevent the freedmen from obtaining employment (away) from their former masters. The gist of the enactment alluded to is contained in the paragraph directing the officers on patrol duty ”to arrest and take up all idle and vagrant persons running at large without employment and carry them before the proper authorities, to be dealt with as the law directs.” A regulation like this certainly would make it difficult for freedmen to leave their former masters for the purpose of seeking employment elsewhere. The matter was submitted to Brevet Major General Hawkins, commanding western district of Louisiana, who issued an order prohibiting the parish police forces from arresting freedmen unless for positive offence against the law.
Clearer and more significant was the ordnance pa.s.sed by the police board of the town of Opelousas, Louisiana. (Accompanying doc.u.ment No. 34.) It deserves careful perusal. Among a number of regulations applying exclusively to the negro, and depriving him of all liberty of locomotion, the following striking provisions are found:
Section 3. No negro or freedman shall be permitted to rent or keep a house within the limits of the town _under any circ.u.mstances_, and any one thus offending shall be ejected and _compelled to find an employer_ or leave the town within twenty-four hours. The lessor or furnisher of the house leased or kept as above shall pay a fine of ten dollars for each offence.
Section 4. No negro or freedman shall reside within the limits of the town of Opelousas _who is not in the regular service of some white person or former owner_.
Section 8. No freedman shall sell, barter or exchange, any articles of merchandise or traffic within the limits of Opelousas without permission in writing from his employer, or the mayor, or president of the board.
This ordinance was at first approved by a lieutenant colonel of the United States forces having local command there, and it is worthy of note that thereupon the infection spread at once, and similar ordinances were entertained by the police boards of the town of Franklin and of the parish of St. Landry. (Accompanying doc.u.ment No. 35). The parish ordinance of St.
Landry differs from the town ordinances of Opelousas and Franklin in several points, and wherever there is any difference, it is in the direction of greater severity. It imposes heavier fines and penalties throughout, and provides, in addition, for a system of corporal punishment. It is also ordained ”that the aforesaid penalties shall be _summarily enforced_, and that it shall be the duty of the _captain or chief of patrol_ to see that the aforesaid ordinances are promptly executed.” While the town ordinances provide that a negro who does not find an employer shall be compelled to leave the town, the parish or county ordinance knows nothing of letting the negro go, but simply _compels_ him to find an employer. Finally, it is ordained ”that it shall be the duty of every _citizen_ to act as a police officer for the detection of offences and the apprehension of offenders, who shall be immediately handed over to the proper captain or chief of patrol.”
It is true, an ”organization of free labor” upon this plan would not be exactly the re-establishment of slavery in its old form, but as for the practical working of the system with regard to the welfare of the freedman, the difference would only be for the worse. The negro is not only not permitted to be idle, but he is positively prohibited from working or carrying on a business for himself; he is _compelled_ to be in the ”regular service” of a white man, and if he has no employer he is _compelled_ to find one. It requires only a simple understanding among the employers, and the negro is just as much bound to his employer ”for better and for worse” as he was when slavery existed in the old form. If he should attempt to leave his employer on account of non-payment of wages or bad treatment he is _compelled_ to find another one; and if no other will take him he will be _compelled_ to return to him from whom he wanted to escape. The employers, under such circ.u.mstances, are naturally at liberty to arrange the matter of compensation according to their tastes, for the negro will be compelled to be in the regular service of an employer, whether he receives wages or not. The negro may be permitted by his employer ”to hire his own time,” for in the spirit and intent of the ordinance his time never properly belongs to him. But even the old system of slavery was more liberal in this respect, for such ”permission to hire his own time” ”shall never extend over seven days at any one time.” (Sec.
4.) The sections providing for the ”_summary_” enforcement of the penalties and placing their infliction into the hands of the ”chief of patrol”--which, by the way, throws some light upon the objects for which the militia is to be reorganized--place the freedmen under a sort of permanent martial law, while the provision investing every white man with the power and authority of a police officer as against every black man subjects them to the control even of those individuals who in other communities are thought hardly fit to control themselves. On the whole, this piece of legislation is a striking embodiment of the idea that although the former owner has lost his individual right of property in the former slave, ”the blacks at large belong to the whites at large.”
Such was the ”organization of free labor” ordained by officials appointed by Governor Wells, and these ordinances were pa.s.sed while both the emanc.i.p.ation proclamation and a provision in the new const.i.tution of Louisiana abolis.h.i.+ng slavery in that State forever were recognized as being in full force. It is needless to say that as soon as these proceedings came to the knowledge of the Freedmen's Bureau and the department commander they were promptly overruled. But Governor Wells did not remove the police boards that had thus attempted to revive slavery in a new form.
The opposition to the negro's controlling his own labor, carrying on business independently on his own account--in one word, working for his own benefit--showed itself in a variety of ways. Here and there munic.i.p.al regulations were gotten up heavily taxing or otherwise impeding those trades and employments in which colored people are most likely to engage.
As an ill.u.s.tration, I annex an ordinance pa.s.sed by the common council of Vicksburg, (accompanying doc.u.ment No. 36,) together with a letter from Colonel Thomas, in which he says: ”You will see by the city ordinance that a drayman, or hackman, must file a bond of five hundred dollars, in addition to paying for his license. The mayor requires that the bondsmen must be freeholders. The laws of this State do not, and never did, allow a negro to own land or hold property; the white citizens refuse to sign any bonds for the freedmen. The white citizens and authorities say that it is for their interest to drive out all independent negro labor; that the freedmen must hire to white men if they want to do this kind of work.” I found several instances of a similar character in the course of my observations, of which I neglected to procure the doc.u.mentary evidence.
It may be said that these are mere isolated cases; and so they are. But they are the local outcroppings of a spirit which I found to prevail everywhere. If there is any difference, it is in the degree of its intensity and the impatience or boldness with which it manifests itself.
Of the agencies which so far restrained it from venturing more general demonstrations I shall speak in another part of this report.
EDUCATION OF THE FREEDMEN.
It would seem that all those who sincerely desire to make the freedman a freeman in the true sense of the word, must also be in favor of so educating him as to make him clearly understand and appreciate the position he is to occupy in life, with all its rights and corresponding duties, and to impart to him all the knowledge necessary for enabling him to become an intelligent co-operator in the general movements of society.