You are on page 1of 44

About 600,000 slaves were imported into the U.S.

, or 5% of the 12 million slaves brought across from Africa to the Americas. The great majority of African slaves went to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was short and the numbers had to be continually replenished. Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of generally better food, less disease, lighter work loads, and better medical care) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England.[5] The first 19 or so blacks arrived ashore near Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, brought by Dutch traders who had seized them from a captured Spanish slave ship. The Spanish usually baptized slaves in Africa before embarking them and English law considered baptized Christians exempt from slavery, so these Blacks joined about 1,000 English indentured servants already in the colony. Some achieved freedom and owned land. Anthony Johnson, a free black, later owned the American Colonies' first true slave.[6] Slaves imported to American colonies[7] Date Numbers 16201700 21,000 17011760 189,000 17611770 63,000 17711790 56,000 17911800 79,000 18011810 124,000[8] 18101865 51,000 Total 597,000 In the early years of the Chesapeake Bay colony, most laborers came from Britain as "indentured servants." To gain passage to the colonies, they signed contracts of indenture to pay with work for their passage, their upkeep and training, usually on a farm, as the colonies were highly agricultural. The servants were young people who intended to become permanent residents. Some masters treated them as well or as poorly as family members. They were not slaves. In some cases, convicted criminals were transported to the colonies as indentured servants, rather than being imprisoned. Many Scots-Irish, Irish and Germans came in the 18th century. Historians estimate that more than half of all white immigrants to the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries came as indentured servants. The number of indentured servants among immigrants was particularly high in the South.[9] The early colonists of Virginia treated the first Africans in the colony as indentured servants. They were freed after a stated period and given the use of land and supplies by their former masters. The historian Ira Berlin noted that what he called the charter generation was sometimes made up of mixed-race men who were indentured servants, and whose ancestry was African and Iberian. They were descendants of Portuguese and Spanish men who worked in African ports as traders or facilitators in the slave trade, and their African consorts.

Slaves processing tobacco in 17th-century Virginia

The Chesapeake Bay Colony had difficulty attracting sufficient laborers; in addition, there was a high mortality rate in the early years.[9] The wealthier planters found that the major problem with indentured servants was that they left after several years, just when they had become skilled and the most valuable workers. In addition, an improving economy in England in the late 17th and early 18th centuries meant that fewer workers chose to go to the colonies. The transformation of the status of Africans from indentured servitude to slaverywhereby they could never leavehappened gradually. There were no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history. But, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant, John Punch, to slavery. In 1654, John Casor, a black indentured servant, became the first legally recognized slave in Colonial America. He claimed to someone named Robert Parker that his owner, free black colonist Anthony Johnson, had held him past his term. Parker told Johnson that if he did not release Casor, Parker would testify in court to this fact; under local laws, this might cause the forfeiture of some of Johnson's land. Under duress, Johnson freed Casor, who entered into seven years' servitude with Parker. Johnson, who felt he had been cheated, sued Parker to repossess Casor. A Northampton County court ruled for Johnson, declaring that Parker illegally was detaining Casor from his rightful master who legally held him "for the duration of his life".[10] Since persons with African origins were not English subjects by birth, they were considered foreigners and generally outside English Common Law. Elizabeth Key Grinstead, a mixedrace woman, successfully gained her freedom and that of her son in the Virginia courts in 1656 by making her case as the daughter of the free Englishman Thomas Key. She was also a baptized Christian. Her attorney and her son's father was also an English subject, which may have helped her case.[11]

Slaves on a South Carolina plantation (The Old Plantation, c. 1790) Shortly after the Elizabeth Key trial and similar challenges, in 1662 Virginia passed a law adopting the principle of partus sequitur ventrum (called partus, for short), stating that any children of an enslaved mother would take her status and be born into slavery, regardless if the father were a freeborn Englishman. This institutionalized the power relationships, freed the white men from the legal responsibility to acknowledge or financially support their children, and somewhat confined the open scandal of mixed-race children and miscegenation to within the slave quarters. The Virginia Slave codes of 1705 further defined as slaves those people imported from nations that were not Christian, as well as Native Americans who were sold to colonists by other Native Americans. This established the basis for the legal enslavement of any non-Christian foreigner.

Ledger of sale of 118 slaves, Charleston, South Carolina, c. 1754 In 1735, the trustees of the colony of Georgia, set up to enable worthy laborers to have a new start, passed a law to prohibit slavery, which was then legal in the other twelve English colonies. They wanted to eliminate the risk of slave rebellions and make Georgia better able to defend against attacks from the Spanish to the south. The law supported Georgia's original charterto turn some of England's poor into hardworking small farmers.[12][13] The Protestant Scottish highlanders who settled what is now Darien, Georgia added a moral anti-slavery argument, which was rare at the time, in their 1739 "Petition of the Inhabitants of New Inverness".[14] By 1750 Georgia authorized slavery in the state because they had been unable to secure enough indentured servants as laborers, since economic conditions in England began to improve in the first half of the 18th century. During most of the British colonial period, slavery existed in all the colonies. People enslaved in the North typically worked as house servants, artisans, laborers and craftsmen, with the greater number in cities. The South depended on an agricultural economy, and it had a significantly higher number and proportion of slaves in the population, as its commodity crops were labor intensive.[15] Early on, slaves in the South worked primarily in agriculture, on farms and plantations growing indigo, rice, and tobacco; cotton became a major crop after the 1790s. The invention of the cotton gin enabled the cultivation of short-staple cotton in a wide variety of areas, leading to the development of the Deep South as cotton country. Tobacco was very labor intensive, as was rice cultivation.[16] In South Carolina in 1720, about 65% of the population consisted of slaves.[17] Planters (defined by historians as those who held 20 slaves or more) used slaves to cultivate commodity crops. Backwoods subsistence farmers, the later wave of settlers in the 18th century who settled along the Appalachian Mountains and backcountry, seldom owned slaves. Some of the British colonies attempted to abolish the international slave trade, fearing that the importation of new Africans would be disruptive. Virginia bills to that effect were vetoed by the British Privy Council. Rhode Island forbade the import of slaves in 1774. All of the colonies except Georgia had banned or limited the African slave trade by 1786; Georgia did so in 1798. Some of these laws were later repealed.[18]

Revolutionary Era
Slaves inside Britain

Origins and Percentages of Africans imported into British North America Amount % [19][20] and Louisiana (17001820) West-central Africa (Kongo, N. Mbundu, S. Mbundu) 26.1 Bight of Biafra (Igbo, Tikar, Ibibio, Bamileke, Bubi) 24.4 Sierra Leone (Mende, Temne) 15.8 Senegambia (Mandinka, Fula, Wolof) 14.5 Gold Coast (Akan, Fon) 13.1 Windward Coast (Mand, Kru) 5.2 Bight of Benin (Yoruba, Ewe, Fon, Allada and Mahi) 4.3 Southeast Africa (Macua, Malagasy) 1.8 Slavery in Great Britain had never been authorized by statute. In 1772 it was made unenforceable at common law by a decision of Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, but this decision did not apply in the colonies. A number of cases for emancipation were presented to the British courts. Numerous runaways hoped to reach Britain where they hoped to be free. The slaves' belief that King George III was for them and against their masters rose as tensions increased before the American Revolution; colonial slaveholders feared a British-inspired slave revolt.

Lord Dunmore's proclamation


In early 1775 Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia, wrote to Lord Dartmouth of his intent to take advantage of this situation.[21] On November 7, 1775, Lord Dunmore issued Lord Dunmore's Proclamation which declared martial law[22] and promised freedom for any slaves of American patriots who would leave their masters and join the royal forces. About 1500 did so; most died of disease before they could do any fighting. Only 300 made it to freedom in Britain.[23] In all the 13 colonies tens of thousands of slaves tried to enlist in the British army when it controlled an area. For instance, in South Carolina, nearly 25,000 slaves (30% of the total enslaved population) fled, migrated or died during the disruption of the war.[24] In the closing months of the war, the British evacuated 20,000 freedmen, transporting them for resettlement in Nova Scotia, the Caribbean islands, and some to England.

Constitution of the United States


The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of slaves. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.[25] As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited citizens from providing assistance to escaping slaves and required the return of chattel property to owners. In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[26] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.[27] The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.[27]

1790 to 1850

An animation showing when United States territories and states forbade or allowed slavery, 17891861. While the Constitution protected the slave trade, in the first two decades of the postwar era, state legislatures in both the North and South made decisions to free many slaves, resulting in a dramatic rise in the number and of free blacks and their proportion in the United States by 1810. Most free blacks were in the North, but in the Upper South, the proportion went from less than one percent of all blacks to more than 10 percent, even as the number of slaves were increasing.[28] After 1810, the cotton gin made the cultivation of short-staple cotton profitable, as it could be processed, and the Deep South was developed for widespread cotton cultivation, dramatically increasing the demand for slaves in the southern United States. The protections of slavery in the Constitution strengthened the political power of southern representatives, and the southern economy had links nationwide. As the historian James Oliver Horton noted, slaveholders and the commodity crops of the South had a strong influence on United States politics and economy; New York City's economy was closely tied to the South through shipping and manufacturing, for instance. By 1822 half of its exports were related to cotton.[29] Horton said, "in the 72 years between the election of George Washington and the election of Abraham Lincoln, 50 of those years [had] a slaveholder as president of the United States, and, for that whole period of time, there was never a person elected to a second term who was not a slaveholder."[27]

Northern abolition
During and after the American Revolutionary War, between 1777 and 1804, anti-slavery laws or constitutions were passed in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. By 1810, 75 percent of all blacks in the North were free. By 1840, virtually all blacks in the North were free.[30] Vermont's 1777 constitution made no allowance for slavery. In Massachusetts, slavery was successfully challenged in court in 1783 in a freedom suit by Quock Walker as being in contradiction to the state's new constitution of 1780 providing for equality of men. Free blacks were subject to racial segregation in the North, and it took decades for some states to extend the franchise to them.[31] Most northern states passed legislation for gradual abolition. As a result of this gradualist approach, New York did not free its last slaves until 1829, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848,

and slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865.[32] The principal organized bodies to advocate these reforms in the north were the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and the New York Manumission Society. The emancipation of slaves in the North led to the growth in the population of northern free blacks, from several hundreds in the 1770s to nearly 50,000 by 1810.[33] Through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 under the Congress of the Confederation, slavery was prohibited in the territories northwest of the Ohio River (Existing slaves in the Territory were not freed for years, although they could no longer be sold). That was a compromise, as Thomas Jefferson's original proposal in 1784 to end slavery in all the territories lost in Congress by one vote. The territories south of the Ohio River (and Missouri) had authorized slavery.[34] Yankees and Northerners predominated in the westward movement into the Midwestern territory after the American Revolution; as the states were organized, they voted to prohibit slavery in their constitutions when they achieved statehood: Ohio in 1803, Indiana in 1816, and Illinois in 1818. What developed into a Northern block of free states united into one contiguous geographic area that generally shared an anti-slavery culture. The exceptions were areas along the Ohio River settled by Southerners, for instance, the southern portions of states such as Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, leading those areas generally to share in Southern culture and positions.

Postwar Southern manumissions


Although Virginia, Maryland and Delaware were slave states, their legislatures made manumission easier following the Revolution. Quaker and Methodist ministers particularly urged slaveholders to free their slaves. The number and proportion of free blacks in these states rose dramatically until 1810. More than half of the number of free blacks in the United States were concentrated in the Upper South. The proportion of free blacks among the black population in the Upper South rose from less than one percent in 1792 to more than 10 percent by 1810.[28] In Delaware, nearly 75 percent of blacks were free by 1810.[35] In the US as a whole, by 1810 the number of free blacks reached 186,446, or 13.5 percent of all blacks.[30] After that period, few were freed, as the development of cotton plantations featuring short-staple cotton in the Deep South drove up the internal demand for slaves in the domestic slave trade.[36]

Internal slave trade and forced migration

Movement of slaves between 1790 and 1860 The growing demand for cotton led many plantation owners further west in search of suitable land. In addition, invention of the cotton gin in 1793 enabled more economic processing of short-staple cotton, which could readily be grown in the uplands. The invention revolutionized the cotton industry by increasing fifty-fold the quantity of cotton that could be processed in a day. The mechanization could efficiently handle short-staple cotton, which could be grown in more places than the long-staple cotton of the Low Country. Results were the explosive growth of cotton cultivation throughout the Deep South and greatly increased demand for slave labor to support it.[37] Manumissions decreased dramatically in the South.[38] At the end of the War of 1812, fewer than 300,000 bales of cotton were produced nationally. By 1820 the amount of cotton produced had increased to 600,000 bales, and by 1850 it had reached 4,000,000. By 1815, the internal slave trade had become a major economic activity in the United States; it lasted until the 1860s.[39] Between 1830 and 1840 nearly 250,000 slaves were taken across state lines.[39] In the 1850s over 193,000 were transported, and historians estimate nearly one million in total took part in the forced migration of this new Middle Passage. By 1860 the slave population in the United States had reached 4 million.[39] As the internal slave trade became a dominant feature of American slavery, individuals lost their connection to families and clans. Added to the earlier settlers' previous glossing over of origins and combining slaves from different tribes, many ethnic Africans lost all knowledge of varying tribal origins in Africa, as most had families who had been in the United States for many generations.[39] This boom in agricultural economies in the Deep South resulted in a large westward and southward forced migration of slaves. Historians have estimated that one million slaves were moved westward and southward between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves originated in Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, where changes in agriculture decreased demand for slaves. Before 1810, primary destinations were Kentucky and Tennessee, but after 1810 Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas received the most slaves.[40] Kentucky and Tennessee became exporting states. The historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the "Second Middle Passage", because it reproduced many of the same horrors as the Middle Passage (the name given to the transportation of slaves from Africa to North America). This large migration of slaves broke up many families and caused much

hardship. The historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew," this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[41] Characterizing it as the "central event in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether slaves were directly uprooted or lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[42] In the 1830s, almost 300,000 slaves were transported, with Alabama and Mississippi receiving 100,000 each. During each decade between 1810 and 1860, at least 100,000 slaves were moved from their state of origin. In the final decade before the Civil War, 250,000 were moved. Michael Tadman wrote in Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South (1989) that 6070% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance of being sold south by 1860.[43] The death rate for the slaves on their way to their new destination across the American South was much less than that of the captives shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, but mortality was higher than the normal death rate.

Slave trader's business in Atlanta, Georgia, 1864. Slave traders transported two-thirds of the slaves who moved west.[44] Only a minority moved with their families and existing master. Slave traders had little interest in purchasing or transporting intact slave families; in the early years, planters demanded only young male slaves for heavy labor. Later, in the interest of creating a "self-reproducing labor force", planters purchased nearly equal numbers of men and women. Berlin wrote: "The internal slave trade became the largest enterprise in the South outside the plantation itself, and probably the most advanced in its employment of modern transportation, finance, and publicity." The slave trade industry developed its own unique language, with terms such as "prime hands, bucks, breeding wenches, and fancy girls" coming into common use.[45] The expansion of the interstate slave trade contributed to the "economic revival of once depressed seaboard states" as demand accelerated the value of slaves who were subject to sale.[46] Some traders moved their "chattels" by sea, with Norfolk to New Orleans being the most common route, but most slaves were forced to walk overland. Others were shipped downriver from such markets as Louisville on the Ohio River, and Natchez on the Mississippi. Traders created regular migration routes served by a network of slave pens, yards, and warehouses needed as temporary housing for the slaves. In addition, other vendors provided clothes, food, and supplies for slaves. As the trek advanced, some slaves were sold and new ones purchased. Berlin concluded, "In all, the slave trade, with its hubs and regional centers, its spurs and circuits, reached into every cranny of southern society. Few southerners, black or white, were untouched."[47]

Slaves Waiting for Sale: Richmond, Virginia. Painted upon the sketch of 1853 Once the trip ended, slaves faced a life on the frontier significantly different from most labor in the Upper South. Clearing trees and starting crops on virgin fields was harsh and backbreaking work. A combination of inadequate nutrition, bad water, and exhaustion from both the journey and the work weakened the newly arrived slaves and produced casualties. New plantations were located at rivers' edges for ease of transportation and travel. Mosquitoes and other environmental challenges spread disease, which took the lives of many slaves. They had acquired only limited immunities to lowland diseases in their previous homes. The death rate was so high that, in the first few years of hewing a plantation out of the wilderness, some planters preferred whenever possible to use rented slaves rather than their own.[48] The harsh conditions on the frontier increased slave resistance and led owners and overseers to rely on violence for control. Many of the slaves were new to cotton fields and unaccustomed to the "sunrise-tosunset gang labor" required by their new life. Slaves were driven much harder than when they had been in growing tobacco or wheat back east. Slaves had less time and opportunity to improve the quality of their lives by raising their own livestock or tending vegetable gardens, for either their own consumption or trade, as they could in the east.[49] In Louisiana, French colonists had established sugar cane plantations and exported sugar as the chief commodity crop. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Americans entered the state and joined the sugar cultivation. Between 1810 and 1830, planters bought slaves from the North and the number of slaves increased from less than 10,000 to more than 42,000. Planters preferred young males, who represented two-thirds of the slave purchases. Dealing with sugar cane was even more physically demanding than growing cotton. The largely young, unmarried male slave force made the reliance on violence by the owners especially savage.[50] New Orleans became nationally important as a slave market and port, as slaves were shipped from there upriver by steamboat to plantations on the Mississippi River; it also sold slaves who had been shipped downriver from markets such as Louisville. By 1840, it had the largest slave market in North America. It became the wealthiest and the fourth-largest city in the nation, based chiefly on the slave trade and associated businesses.[51] The trading season was from September to May, after the harvest.[52]

Treatment
Main article: Treatment of slaves in the United States

A whipped Mississippi slave, photo taken at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1863; the guilty overseer was fired.
[53]

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied widely depending on conditions, times and places. Treatment was generally characterized by brutality, degradation, and inhumanity. Whippings, executions, and rapes were commonplace.[citation needed] According to Adalberto Aguirre, there were 1,161 slaves executed in the U.S. between the 1790s and 1850s.[54] Exceptions existed to virtually every generalization; for instance, there were slaves who employed white workers, slave doctors who treated upper-class white patients, and slaves who rented out their labor.[55] After 1820, in response to the inability to import new slaves from Africa, some slaveholders improved the living conditions of their slaves, to influence them not to attempt escape.[56] The colonies and states generally denied slaves the opportunity to learn to read or write, to protect against their forming aspirations that could lead to escape or rebellion.[57] Some slaves learned from planters' children, or from free laborers, while working alongside them. Medical care, which was limited in terms of medical knowledge available to anyone, for slaves was generally provided by other slaves or by slaveholders' family members. Many slaves possessed medical skills needed to tend to each other, and used many folk remedies brought from Africa. They also developed new remedies based on American plants and herbs.[58] Some states prohibited religious gatherings of slaves, particularly following incidents such as Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831. Planters feared that group meetings would facilitate communication and may lead to rebellion.[59] According to Andrew Fede, "...a master could be held criminally liable only if the slave he killed was completely submissive and under the master's absolute control."[60] For example, in 1791 the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction.[61] Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding, and imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was carried out simply to re-assert the dominance of the master or overseer over the slave.[62] Treatment was usually harsher on large plantations, which were often managed by overseers and owned by absentee slaveholders; in contrast with small slave-owning families, where the closer relationship between the owners and slaves sometimes resulted in a more humane environment.[63] Fugitive slave, William Wells Brown, reported that on one plantation, slave-men were required to pick 80

pounds-per-day of cotton, while women were required to pick 70 pounds, if any slave failed in his or her quota, they were given lashes of the whip for each pound they were short; the whipping post stood right next to the cotton scales.[64] Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was convicted of cruel treatment, the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."[65] Because of the power relationships of the institution, slave women in the United States were at high risk for rape and sexual abuse.[66][67] Many slaves fought back against sexual attacks, and some died resisting. Others carried psychological and physical scars from the attacks.[68] Sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in a patriarchal Southern culture which treated black women as property or chattel.[67] Southern culture strongly policed against sexual relations between white women and black men on the purported grounds of racial purity but, before the late 18th century, the many mixed-race slaves and slave children showed that white men had often taken advantage of slave women.[67] Both Mary Chesnut and Fanny Kemble, wives of planters, wrote about this issue in the antebellum South. A famous example was Thomas Jefferson's mistress, Sally Hemings. Sometimes planters used mixed-race slaves as house servants or favored artisans because they were their children or other relatives.[69]

Slave sale, Charleston, 1856 While slaves' living conditions were poor by modern standards, Robert Fogel argued that all workers, free or slave, during the first half of the 19th century were subject to hardship.[70]

Slave codes
Main article: Slave codes To help regulate the relationship between slave and owner, including legal support for keeping the slave as property, slave codes were established. Slave codes were laws established to demonstrate legal sanctions over the black population. While each state had its own slave code, many concepts were shared throughout the slave states.[71] According to the slave codes, teaching a slave to read or write was illegal, although it often took place as children taught each other. Even though slave codes had many common features, each state had specific codes or variations that suited the laws in that region. For example in Alabama, slaves were not allowed to leave from the premises of the owner without written consent, nor were slaves allowed to trade goods among themselves. In Virginia, slaves were not permitted to drink in public within one mile of his master or during public

gatherings. In Ohio, an emancipated slave was prohibited from returning to the state in which he or she had been enslaved. Slaves were not permitted to carry firearms in any of the slave states. The code for the District of Columbia defined a slave as "a human being, who is by law deprived of his or her liberty for life, and is the property of another."[72]

Abolitionist movement

Curry's Tragic Prelude, illustrating abolitionist John Brown and the clash of forces in Bleeding Kansas Main article: Abolitionism in the United States. See also Abolition of slavery timeline, List of notable opponents of slavery As noted above, soon after the Revolutionary War, northern states began to abolish slavery. Many states, including southern ones, passed laws prohibiting the importation of slaves to end the transatlantic slave trade. After Great Britain and the United States outlawed the international slave trade in 1808, the British West Africa Squadron's slave trade suppression activities were assisted by forces from the United States Navy, starting in 1820. With the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, the relationship with Britain was formalised, and they jointly ran the Africa Squadron.[73] Throughout the first half of the 19th century, abolitionism, a movement to end slavery grew in strength throughout the United States; most abolitionist societies and supporters were in the North. This struggle took place amid strong support for slavery among white Southerners, who profited greatly from the system of enslaved labor. Slavery was entwined with the national economy; for instance, the banking, shipping and manufacturing industries of New York City all had strong economic interests in slavery, as did some other major cities in the North. Slaveholders began to refer to slavery as the "peculiar institution" to differentiate it from other examples of forced labor. They justified it as less cruel than the free labor of the North.

Henry Clay (17771852), one of three founders of the American Colonization Society, the vehicle for returning black Americans to greater freedom in Africa, founding Liberia.[74] In the early part of the 19th century, a variety of organizations were founded that advocated moving black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom; some endorsed colonization in Africa, while others advocated emigration. During the 1820s and 1830s, the American Colonization Society (ACS) was the primary organization for proposals to "return" black Americans to Africa.[74] The ACS was made up mostly of Quakers and slaveholders, who disagreed on the issue of slavery but found common ground in support of "repatriation". Most black Americans did not want to emigrate; rather, they wanted full rights in the United States, where they were native born, often for generations. In 1821 the ACS established the colony of Liberia. It assisted thousands of former African-American slaves and free blacks (with legislated limits) to emigrate there from the United States. Many white people saw this as preferable to emancipation in the United States. Henry Clay, one of the founders, said that blacks faced "unconquerable prejudice resulting from their color, they never could amalgamate with the free whites of this country. It was desirable, therefore, as it respected them, and the residue of the population of the country, to drain them off".[75] The slaveholder argued that it would be better for blacks to emigrate to Africa.[75] Slaveholders opposed freedom for blacks, but saw "repatriation" as a way of avoiding rebellions.[74] After 1830, William Lloyd Garrison worked for abolition by tying it to religion as a personal sin. He demanded the owners repent and start the process of emancipation. His position increased defensiveness on the part of some southerners, who pointed to the long history of slavery among cultures. A few abolitionists, such as John Brown, favored the use of armed force to foment uprisings among the slaves. Most tried to raise public support for changed laws and to use the legal system.

High demand and smuggling

U.S. brig Perry confronting the slave ship Martha off Ambriz on June 6, 1850 The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, had prevented Congress from regulating the importation of slaves until 1808. Knowing the trade would end, in the eight years from 1800 until December 31, 1807, Georgia and South Carolina reopened their trade and imported about 100,000 enslaved Africans into the country. After 1820, when Congress strengthened the law, "it is unlikely that more than 10,000 [slaves] were successfully landed in the United States."[76] Numerous states individually passed laws against importing slaves after the Revolution.

By January 1, 1808, when Congress banned further imports, only South Carolina was still importing slaves. Congress allowed continued trade only in slaves who were descendants of those currently in the United States. The domestic slave trade was allowed, and it became more profitable than ever with the development of the Deep South for cotton and sugar crops. In addition, US citizens could participate in the international slave trade and the outfitting of ships for that trade. Slavery in America became, more or less, self-sustaining by natural increase among the current slaves and their descendants. Despite the ban, slave imports continued, if on a smaller scale, with smugglers continuing to bring in slaves past U.S. Navy patrols to South Carolina, and overland from Texas and Florida, both under Spanish control.[77] Congress increased the punishment associated with importing slaves, classifying it in 1820 as an act of piracy, with smugglers subject to harsh penalties, including death if caught. Because of the high market demand, some smuggling of slaves into the United States continued until just before the start of the Civil War.

War of 1812
During the War of 1812, British Royal Navy commanders of the blockading fleet, based at the Bermuda dockyard, were instructed to offer freedom to defecting American slaves, as the Crown had during the Revolutionary War. Thousands of escaped black slaves went over to the Crown with their families. Men were recruited into the Corps of Colonial Marines on occupied Tangier Island, in the Chesapeake Bay. The freedmen fought for Britain throughout the Atlantic campaign, including the attack on Washington D.C. and the Louisiana Campaign. Seven hundred[citation needed] of these ex-marines were granted land (they reportedly organised themselves in villages along the lines of their military companies). Many other freed American slaves were recruited directly into existing West Indian regiments, or newly created British Army units[citation needed]. The British later resettled a few thousand freed slaves at Nova Scotia. Slaveholders, primarily in the South, had considerable "loss of property" as tens of thousands of slaves[citation needed] escaped to British lines or ships for freedom, despite the difficulties. The planters' complacency about slave "contentment" was shocked by seeing that slaves would risk so much to be free. [78] Afterwards, when some freed slaves had been settled at Bermuda, slaveholders such as Major Pierce Butler of South Carolina tried to persuade them to return to the United States, to no avail. The Americans protested that Britain's failure to return all slaves violated the Treaty of Ghent. After arbitration by the Tsar of Russia the British paid $1,204,960[79] in damages to Washington, which reimbursed the slaveowners.[80]

Religion

Eastman Johnson's 1863 painting "The Lord is My Shepherd" Prior to the American Revolution, masters and revivalists spread Christianity to slave communities, supported by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. In the First Great Awakening, Baptists and Methodists from New England preached a message against slavery, encouraged masters to free their slaves, converted both slaves and free blacks, and gave them active roles in new congregations.[81] The first black congregations were started in the South before the Revolution. Over the decades and with the growth of slavery throughout the South, Baptist and Methodist ministers gradually changed their messages to accommodate the institution. After 1830, white Southerners argued for the compatibility of Christianity and slavery, with a multitude of both Old and New Testament citations.[82] Southern slaves generally attended their masters white churches, and often outnumbered the white congregants. They were usually permitted only to sit in the back or in the balcony. They listened to white preachers, who emphasized the appropriate behavior of slaves to keep in their place, and acknowledged the slaves identity as both person and property.[82] Preachers taught the master's responsibility and the concept of appropriate paternal treatment, using Christianity to improve conditions for slaves, and to treat them "justly and fairly (Col. 4:1). This included having self-control, not disciplining under anger, not threatening, and ultimately fostering Christianity among their slaves by example.[82] Slaves also created their own religious observances, meeting alone without the supervision of their white masters or ministers. Plantations that held groups of slaves numbering twenty, or more, lent the opportunity for nighttime meetings of one or several plantation slave populations.[82] These congregations revolved around a singular preacher, often illiterate with limited knowledge of theology, who was marked by his personal piety and ability to foster a spiritual environment. One lasting influence of these secret congregations is the African-American spiritual.[83]

Nat Turner and anti-literacy laws

James Hopkinson's Plantation. Planting sweet potatoes. ca. 1862/63 In 1831, a slave rebellion occurred in Southampton County, Virginia, organized by Nat Turner, a literate slave who claimed to have spiritual visions. He organized what became known as Nat Turner's Rebellion or the Southampton Insurrection. Turner and his followers killed nearly 60 white inhabitants, mostly women and children, as many of the men in the area were attending a religious event in North Carolina.[84] Eventually Turner was captured with 17 other rebels and subdued by the militia.[84] Turner and his followers were hanged, and Turner's body was flayed. In a frenzy of fear and retaliation, the militia killed more than 100 slaves who had not been involved in the rebellion. Planters whipped hundreds of innocent slaves to quell resistance.[84] Across the South, harsh new laws were enacted to curtail the already limited rights of African Americans. New laws in Virginia prohibited blacks, free or slave, from practicing preaching, prohibited blacks from owning firearms, and forbade anyone to teach slaves how to read.[84] Typical was the Virginia anti-literacy law against educating slaves, free blacks and children of whites and blacks, which specified heavy penalties both for student and teacher when slaves were educated.[85]

Economics

Slaves for sale, a scene in New Orleans. After Eli Whitneys creation of the cotton gin in 1793, most of slaves were directed to the production of cotton. Statistical data shows that while less than 10% of the population in North was composed of slaves, by 1790, Virginia had up to 44% of the total slave population. Slavery in the antebellum US was the use of Negro labor in bondage.[86] It was common in agriculture, with a more massive presence in the South region where climate was more propitious for agricultural activity. Slavery is regarded by economists and historians as a profitable system. The transition from indentured servants to slaves is strong evidence that the use of slaves offered greater profits to farmers.[87] The relative price of slaves and indentured servants in the antebellum period did decrease. Indentured servants became more costly with the increase in the demand of skilled labor in England.[88] At the same time, slaves were mostly supplied by United States itself and had lower economical costs: lack of language barrier and low

transportation cost of slaves from one state to the other. In the decades preceding the civil war, the United States experienced a rapid natural increase of black population.[89] This fact is evidenced by the increase of slave population to nearly fourfold between 1810 and 1860 even after the slave trade between England and the US was banned in 1808.[86] Even though early discussions of scholars such as Eugene Genoveses argue that slavery was a moribund, inefficient system that was only kept because of cultural reasons, close to 98 percent of the economists nowadays disagree with this possibility and believe that slavery was an investment with good returns compared to other assets.[87] Therefore, the use of human beings in bondage would not have ended in 1860 without the Civil War. The most famous work on the profitability of slavery is attributed to Fogel and Engerman. In Time on the Cross, they argue that the rate of return of slavery at the market price was close to 10 percent, a number close to investment in other assets. Efficiency of Slaves On the level of efficiency of slavery, there is no consensus as there is an onging discussion among scholars on how to qualify efficiency. In Time on the Cross, Fogel and Engerman equate efficiency to Total Factor Productivity (TFP) - the output per average unit of input on each type of farm. Under this measurement, slaves that worked under the Gang System allowed southern farms to be 35% more efficient than North farms which used free labor. The Gang System consisted of groups of slaves performing synchronized tasks under the constant vigilance of a person. Each group of peoples work was analogously like a part of a machine. If a slave was perceived to work less than he/she could work, punishments could be applied. However, Fogel argues that this kind of negative enforcement was not frequent as evidenced by slaves and free labor had similar life conditions. This last statement is a controversial one and there is also no agreement on this matter.[90] Prices of slaves Even controlling for inflation, prices of slaves rose tremendously in the six decades prior to Civil War. It is true that there was a decline in the relative prices of indentured servants and slaves, but the latter also got more expensive as a reflection of the rise of its economic value. Cotton production was at its rise and relied on the use of slaves to perform well. It is argued that if the Civil War had not happened, the slave prices would have increased even more, an average of more than 50 percent by 1890.[90] Prices reflected the characteristics of the slave - sex, age, violent nature and even height were all taken into account to determine the price of a slave. Over the life-cycle, female slaves were more expensive than their male counterparts up to puberty age as they had the extra benefit of potentially bearing children and generating more slaves. Males around the age of 25 were the most valued as they were at the highest level of productivity and still had a considerable life-span. If slaves had a history of fights or escapes, then the value decreased significantly as there was the imminent risk of the same action happening again. Curiously, taller male slaves were also priced at a higher level. Height was viewed as a proxy for productivity.[90] The conditions of the market led to shocks in the supply and demand of slaves, which in turn also changed prices. For instance, slaves became more expensive after the decrease in supply caused by the ban of the trade of slaves between USA and England in 1808. Another example, demand of slaves- which was dependent on the cotton industry felt simultaneously with price of cotton in 1840. Lastly, expectation of the future had a huge impact on prices. As the civil war progressed, there was a huge uncertainty on the continuity of slavery. Prime males in New Orleans were sold by $1116 in 1862 as opposed to $1381 in 1861.[91]

Impact of Slavery in Southern Development While slavery brought profits in the short run, there is a discussion on the economical benefits - or lack of them - of slavery in the long-run. Alexis Tocqueville notes that the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and richer than those in which slavery flourished[92] . Because agriculture was good investment in the antebellum period,[90] Gavin Wright admits that the use of monetary resources in cotton industry among others lagged the development of commercial and industrial institutions. Railroads were also less developed in the South as a result. However this last author argues that agricultural technology was far more developed in the South, representing an economical advantage of the South over the North of the United States.[93]

1850s

Uncle Marian, a slave of great notoriety, of North Carolina. Daguerreotype of elderly North Carolina slave, circa 1850. Because of the three-fifths compromise in the U.S. Constitution, in which slaves counted as three-fifths of a person in terms of population numbers for Congressional representation, the elite planter class had long held power in Congress out of proportion to the total number of white Southerners. In 1850 they passed a more stringent Federal fugitive slave law. Refugees from slavery continued to flee the South across the Ohio River and other parts of the Mason-Dixon Line dividing North from South, to the North via the Underground Railroad. The physical presence of African Americans in Cincinnati, Oberlin, and other Northern towns agitated some white Northerners, though others helped hide former slaves from their former owners, and others helped them reach freedom in Canada. After 1854, Republicans argued that the Slave Power, especially the pro-slavery Democratic Party, controlled two of the three branches of the Federal government. Congress abolished the slave trade (though not the legality of slavery) in the District of Columbia as part of the Compromise of 1850.

Bleeding Kansas
Main article: Bleeding Kansas

After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, border wars broke out in Kansas Territory, where the question of whether it would be admitted to the Union as a slave or free state was left to the inhabitants. Abolitionist John Brown was active in the rebellion and killing in "Bleeding Kansas", as were many white Southerners. At the same time, fears that the Slave Power was seizing full control of the national government swept anti-slavery Republicans into office.

Dred Scott
Main article: Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott and his wife Harriet Scott each sued for freedom in St. Louis after the death of their master on the grounds that they had lived in a territory where slavery was forbidden (the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, from which slavery was excluded under the terms of the Missouri Compromise). (Later the two cases were combined under Dred Scott's name.) Scott filed suit for freedom in 1846 and went through two state trials, the first denying and the second granting freedom to the couple (and, by extension, their two daughters, who had also been held illegally in free territories). Missouri state precedent for 28 years had generally provided for freedom in such cases during the 19th century, but the State Supreme Court ruled against Scott, saying that "times were not what they once were." After the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it denied Scott his freedom in a sweeping decision that set the United States on course for Civil War. The court ruled that, under the Constitution, neither Dred Scott nor any descendant of Africans, slave or free, was a citizen who had a right to sue in the Federal courts, and that Congress had had no constitutional power to pass the Missouri Compromise. The 1857 decision, decided 72, held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; Congress could not bar slavery from a territory; and people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants, could not be citizens. A state could not bar slaveowners from bringing slaves into that state. Many Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln, considered the decision unjust and as proof that the Slave Power had seized control of the Supreme Court. Written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the decision effectively barred slaves and their descendants from citizenship. Abolitionists were enraged and slave owners encouraged, contributing to tensions on this subject that led to civil war.[94]

Civil War and emancipation


1860 presidential election
The divisions became fully exposed with the 1860 presidential election. The electorate split four ways. The Southern Democrats endorsed slavery, while the Republicans denounced it. The Northern Democrats said democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally. The Constitutional Union Party said the survival of the Union was at stake and everything else should be compromised. Lincoln, the Republican, won with a plurality of popular votes and a majority of electoral votes. Lincoln, however, did not appear on the ballots of ten southern states: thus his election necessarily split the nation along sectional lines. Many slave owners in the South feared that the real intent of the Republicans was the abolition of slavery in states where it already existed, and that the sudden emancipation of four million slaves would be problematic for the slave owners and for the economy that drew its greatest profits from the labor of people who were not paid.

They also argued that banning slavery in new states would upset what they saw as a delicate balance of free states and slave states. They feared that ending this balance could lead to the domination of the industrial North with its preference for high tariffs on imported goods. The combination of these factors led the South to secede from the Union, and thus began the American Civil War. Northern leaders had viewed the slavery interests as a threat politically, and with secession, they viewed the prospect of a new southern nation, the Confederate States of America, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as politically and militarily unacceptable.

Civil War

Two children who were likely emancipated during the Civil War, circa 1870 The consequent American Civil War, beginning in 1861, led to the end of chattel slavery in America. Not long after the war broke out, through a legal maneuver credited to Union General Benjamin F. Butler, a lawyer by profession, slaves who came into Union "possession" were considered "contraband of war". General Butler ruled that they were not subject to return to Confederate owners as they had been before the war. Soon word spread, and many slaves sought refuge in Union territory, desiring to be declared "contraband." Many of the "contrabands" joined the Union Army as workers or troops, forming entire regiments of the U.S. Colored Troops. Others went to refugee camps such as the Grand Contraband Camp near Fort Monroe or fled to northern cities. General Butler's interpretation was reinforced when Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861, which declared that any property used by the Confederate military, including slaves, could be confiscated by Union forces. At the beginning of the war, some Union commanders thought they were supposed to return escaped slaves to their masters. By 1862, when it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or of the Union."[95] The same Congressmanand his fellow Radical Republicansput pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the slaves, whereas moderate Republicans came to accept gradual, compensated emancipation and colonization.[96] Copperheads, the

border states and War Democrats opposed emancipation, although the border states and War Democrats eventually accepted it as part of total war needed to save the Union.

Emancipation Proclamation
In 1861, Lincoln expressed the fear that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states. He believed that "to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game."[97] At first, Lincoln reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and Generals John C. Fremont (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) in order to keep the loyalty of the border states and the War Democrats.

Escaped slaves, ca. 1862 Lincoln mentioned his Emancipation Proclamation to members of his cabinet on July 21, 1862. Secretary of State William H. Seward told Lincoln to wait for a victory before issuing the proclamation, as to do otherwise would seem like "our last shriek on the retreat".[98] In September 1862 the Battle of Antietam provided this opportunity, and the subsequent War Governors' Conference added support for the proclamation.[99] Lincoln had already published a letter[100] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[101] Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and said that a final proclamation would be issued if his gradual plan based on compensated emancipation and voluntary colonization was rejected. Only the District of Columbia accepted Lincoln's gradual plan, and Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. In his letter to Hodges, Lincoln explained his belief that

[102]

If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling ... I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was a powerful move that promised freedom for slaves in the Confederacy as soon as the Union armies reached them, and authorized the enlistment of African Americans in the Union Army. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the Unionallied slave-holding states that bordered the Confederacy. Since the Confederate States did not recognize the authority of President Lincoln, and the proclamation did not apply in the border states, at first the proclamation freed only slaves who had escaped behind Union lines. Still, the proclamation made the abolition of slavery an official war goal that was implemented as the Union took territory from the Confederacy. According to the Census of 1860, this policy would free nearly four million slaves, or over 12% of the total population of the United States.

Simon Legree and Uncle Tom: A scene from Uncle Tom's Cabin, history's most famous abolitionist novel Since the Emancipation Proclamation was based on the President's war powers, it only included territory held by Confederates at the time. However, the Proclamation became a symbol of the Union's growing commitment to add emancipation to the Union's definition of liberty.[103] Lincoln also played a leading role in getting Congress to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment,[104] which made emancipation universal and permanent.

Four generations of a slave family photographed during the Civil War, Smith's Plantation, Beaufort, South Carolina, 1862 Enslaved African Americans did not wait for Lincoln's action before escaping and seeking freedom behind Union lines. From early years of the war, hundreds of thousands of African Americans escaped to Union lines, especially in Union-controlled areas like Norfolk and the Hampton Roads region in 1862 Virginia, Tennessee from 1862 on, the line of Sherman's march, etc. So many African Americans fled to Union lines that commanders created camps and schools for them, where both adults and children learned to read and write. The American Missionary Association entered the war effort by sending teachers south to such contraband camps, for instance, establishing schools in Norfolk and on nearby plantations. In addition, nearly 200,000 African-American men served with distinction as soldiers and sailors with Union troops. Most of those were escaped slaves. The Confederacy was outraged by black soldiers and refused to treat them as prisoners of war. Many were shot, as at the Fort Pillow Massacre, and others re-enslaved.[105]

The Arizona Organic Act abolished slavery on February 24, 1863 in the newly formed Arizona Territory. Tennessee and all of the border states (except Kentucky) abolished slavery by early 1865. Thousands of slaves were freed by the operation of the Emancipation Proclamation as Union armies marched across the South. Emancipation as a reality came to the remaining southern slaves after the surrender of all Confederate troops in spring 1865. In spite of the South's shortage of manpower, until 1865, most Southern leaders opposed arming slaves as soldiers. However, a few Confederates discussed arming slaves, and some free blacks had offered to fight for the South. Finally in early 1865 General Robert E. Lee said black soldiers were essential, and legislation was passed. The first black units were in training when the war ended in April.[106]

The end of slavery

Abraham Lincoln presents the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. Painted by Francis Bicknell Carpenter in 1864 The war ended in April 1865 and following that surrender, the Emancipation Proclamation was enforced throughout remaining regions of the South that had not yet freed the slaves. Slavery continued for a couple of months in some locations.[citation needed] Federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas on June 19, to enforce the emancipation, and that day is now celebrated as Juneteenth in several states. The thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery, was passed by the Senate in April 1864, and by the House of Representatives in January 1865.[107] The amendment did not take effect until it was ratified by three fourths of the states, which occurred on December 6, 1865, when Georgia ratified it. On that date, all remaining slaves became officially free.[108] Legally, the last 40,000 or so slaves were freed in Kentucky[109] by the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in December 1865. Slaves still held in Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, Washington, D.C., and twelve parishes of Louisiana[110] also became legally free on this date. American historian R.R. Palmer opined that the abolition of slavery in the United States without compensation to the former slave owners was an "annihilation of individual property rights without parallel...in the history of the Western world".[111] Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War.[112] Booker T. Washington, as a boy of nine in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865:[113] As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paperthe Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we

were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.

Reconstruction to present
During Reconstruction, it was a serious question whether slavery had been permanently abolished or whether some form of semi-slavery would appear after the Union armies left. Over time a large civil rights movement arose to bring full civil rights and equality under the law to all Americans.

Convict leasing
Main article: Convict lease With emancipation a legal reality, white Southerners were concerned with both controlling the newly freed slaves and keeping them in the labor force at the lowest level. The system of convict leasing began during Reconstruction and was fully implemented in the 1880s. This system allowed private contractors to purchase the services of convicts from the state or local governments for a specific time period. African Americans, due to vigorous and selective enforcement of laws and discriminatory sentencing made up the vast majority of the convicts leased.[114] Writer Douglas A. Blackmon writes of the system: It was a form of bondage distinctly different from that of the antebellum South in that for most men, and the relatively few women drawn in, this slavery did not last a lifetime and did not automatically extend from one generation to the next. But it was nonetheless slavery a system in which armies of free men, guilty of no crimes and entitled by law to freedom, were compelled to labor without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced to do the bidding of white masters through the regular application of extraordinary physical coercion.[115] The constitutional basis for convict leasing is that the Thirteenth Amendment, while abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude generally, expressly permits it as a punishment for crime.

Educational issues

An industrial school set up for ex-slaves in Richmond during Reconstruction The anti-literacy laws after 1832 contributed greatly to the problem of widespread illiteracy facing the freedmen and other African Americans after Emancipation and the Civil War 35 years later. The problem of illiteracy and need for education was seen as one of the greatest challenges confronting these people as

they sought to join the free enterprise system and support themselves during Reconstruction and thereafter. Consequently, many black and white religious organizations, former Union Army officers and soldiers, and wealthy philanthropists were inspired to create and fund educational efforts specifically for the betterment of African Americans in the South. Blacks started their own schools even before the end of the war. Northerners helped create numerous normal schools, such as those that became Hampton University and Tuskegee University, to generate teachers. Blacks held teaching as a high calling, with education the first priority for children and adults. Many of the most talented went into the field. Some of the schools took years to reach a high standard, but they managed to get thousands of teachers started. As W. E. B. Du Bois noted, the black colleges were not perfect, but "in a single generation they put thirty thousand black teachers in the South" and "wiped out the illiteracy of the majority of black people in the land."[116] Northern philanthropists continued to support black education in the 20th century, even as tensions rose within the black community, exemplified by Dr. Booker T. Washington and Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, as to the proper emphasis between industrial and classical academic education at the college level. An example of a major donor to Hampton Institute and Tuskegee was George Eastman, who also helped fund health programs at colleges and in communities.[117] Collaborating with Dr. Washington in the early decades of the 20th century, philanthropist Julius Rosenwald provided matching funds for community efforts to build rural schools for black children. He insisted on white and black cooperation in the effort, wanting to ensure that white-controlled school boards made a commitment to maintain the schools. By the 1930s local parents had helped raise funds (sometimes donating labor and land) to create over 5,000 rural schools in the South. Other philanthropists, such as Henry H. Rogers and Andrew Carnegie, each of whom had arisen from modest roots to become wealthy, used matching fund grants to stimulate local development of libraries and schools.

Apologies
On February 24, 2007, the Virginia General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution Number 728 acknowledging "with profound regret the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans, and call for reconciliation among all Virginians."[118] With the passing of this resolution, Virginia became the first state to acknowledge through the state's governing body their state's negative involvement in slavery. The passing of this resolution came on the heels of the 400th anniversary celebration of the city of Jamestown, Virginia, which was one of the first slave ports of the American colonies. On July 30, 2008, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing for American slavery and subsequent discriminatory laws.[119] The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a similar resolution on June 18, 2009, apologizing for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery".[120] It also explicitly states that it cannot be used for restitution claims.[121]

Justification
See also: Proslavery in the antebellum United States

"A necessary evil"

In the 19th century, proponents of slavery often defended the institution as a "necessary evil". White people of that time feared that emancipation of black slaves would have more harmful social and economic consequences than the continuation of slavery. In 1820, Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, wrote in a letter that with slavery: We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.[122] Robert E. Lee wrote in 1856: There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.[123] Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, also expressed an opposition to slavery, but felt that the existence of a multiracial society without slavery untenable, and observed prejudice against negroes increasing as they were granted more rights (for example, in northern states). He considered the attitudes of white southerners, and the concentration of the black population in the southdue to exportation resulting from restrictions in the north, and climatic and economic reasonsthat was bringing the white and black population to a state of equilibrium, as a danger to both races. Thus, because of the racial differences between master and slave, the latter could not be emancipated.[92]

"A positive good"


However, as the abolition agitation increased and the planting system expanded, apologies for slavery became more faint in the South. Then apologies were superseded by claims that slavery was a beneficial scheme of labor control. John C. Calhoun, in a famous speech in the Senate in 1837, declared that slavery was "instead of an evil, a gooda positive good." Calhoun supported his view with the following reasoning: in every civilized society one portion of the community must live on the labor of another; learning, science, and the arts are built upon leisure; the African slave, kindly treated by his master and mistress and looked after in his old age, is better off than the free laborers of Europe; and under the slave system conflicts between capital and labor are avoided. The advantages of slavery in this respect, he concluded, "will become more and more manifest, if left undisturbed by interference from without, as the country advances in wealth and numbers."[124] Others who also moved from the idea of necessary evil to positive good are James Henry Hammond and George Fitzhugh. They presented several arguments to defend the act of slavery in the South.[125] Hammond, like Calhoun, believed slavery was needed to build the rest of society. In a speech to the Senate on March 4, 1858, Hammond developed his Mudsill Theory defending his view on slavery stating, Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Hammond believed that in every class you must have one group to do all the menial duties, because without them the leaders in society could not progress.[126] He argued that the hired laborers of the North are slaves too: The difference is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment, while those in the North had to search for employment. [127] George Fitzhugh, like many white people of his time, believed in racism and used this belief to justify

slavery, writing that, the Negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child. In "The Universal Law of Slavery" Fitzhugh argues that slavery provides everything necessary for life and that the slave is unable to survive in a free world because he is lazy, and cannot compete with the intelligent European white race. He states that "The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world."[128] Without the South "He (slave) would become a an insufferable burden to society" and "Society has the right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery."[129][130] On March 21, 1861, new southern Confederate, Vice President Alexander Stephens, delivered the Cornerstone Speech. The speech explained the differences between the constitution of the Confederate Republic and that of the United States, and laid out the cause for the American Civil War, and a defense of slavery.[131] The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions African slavery as it exists among usthe proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon itwhen the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell." Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.[131]

Native Americans
Main article: Slavery among Native Americans in the United States During the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Indian slavery, the enslavement of Native Americans by European colonists, was common. Many of these Native slaves were exported to the Northern colonies and to off-shore colonies, especially the "sugar islands" of the Caribbean.[132] Historian Alan Gallay estimates that from 16701715, British slave traders sold between 24,000 and 51,000 Native Americans from what is now the southern part of the U.S.[133] Slavery of Native Americans was organized in colonial and Mexican California through Franciscan missions, theoretically entitled to ten years of Native labor, but in practice maintaining them in perpetual servitude, until their charge was revoked in the mid-1830s. Following the 184748 invasion by U.S. troops, the "loitering or orphaned Indians" were de facto enslaved in the new state from statehood in 1850 to 1867.[134] Slavery required the posting of a bond by the slave holder and enslavement occurred through raids and a four-month servitude imposed as a punishment for Indian "vagrancy".[135]

Inter-tribal slavery

The Haida and Tlingit Indians who lived along southeast Alaska's coast were traditionally known as fierce warriors and slave-traders, raiding as far as California. Slavery was hereditary after slaves were taken as prisoners of war. Among some Pacific Northwest tribes, about a quarter of the population were slaves.[136] [137] Other slave-owning tribes of North America were, for example, Comanche of Texas, Creek of Georgia, the fishing societies, such as the Yurok, that lived along the coast from what is now Alaska to California, the Pawnee, and Klamath.[16] After 1800, the Cherokees and the other civilized tribes started buying and using black slaves to gain favor with Europeans, a practice they continued after being relocated to Indian Territory in the 1830s.[132][138] The nature of slavery in Cherokee society often mirrored that of white slave-owning society. The law barred intermarriage of Cherokees and enslaved African Americans.[132] Cherokee who aided slaves were punished with one hundred lashes on the back. In Cherokee society, those with African-American descent were barred from holding office even if they were a mixed blood Cherokee, bearing arms, and owning property, and they made it illegal to teach African Americans to read and write.[132][139][140] By contrast, the Seminoles welcomed into their nation African Americans who had escaped slavery (Black Seminoles).

Post-Emancipation Proclamation slavery


A few captives from other tribes who were used as slaves were not freed when African-American slaves were emancipated. Ute Woman, a Ute captured by the Arapaho and later sold to a Cheyenne, was one example. Used as a prostitute for sale to American soldiers at Cantonment in the Indian Territory, she lived in slavery until about 1880 when she died of a hemorrhage resulting from "excessive sexual intercourse".[141]

Black slaveholders
Some slaveholders were black or had some black ancestry. In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South who owned 12,760 slaves,[142] with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston. Especially New Orleans had a large, relatively wealthy free black population (gens de couleur) composed of people of mixed race, who had become a third class between whites and enslaved blacks under French and Spanish rule. Relatively few slaveholders were substantial planters. Of those who were, most were of mixed race, often endowed by white fathers with some property and social capital.[143] For example, Andrew Durnford of New Orleans was listed as owning seventy-seven slaves.[142] According to Rachel Kranz: "Durnford was known as a stern master who worked his slaves hard and punished them often in his efforts to make his Louisiana sugar plantation a success."[144] The historians John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger wrote: A large majority of profit-oriented free black slaveholders resided in the Lower South. For the most part, they were persons of mixed racial origin, often women who cohabited or were mistresses of white men, or mulatto men ... . Provided land and slaves by whites, they owned farms and plantations, worked their hands in the rice, cotton, and sugar fields, and like their white contemporaries were troubled with runaways.[145] The historian Ira Berlin wrote:

In slave societies, nearly everyone free and slave aspired to enter the slaveholding class, and upon occasion some former slaves rose into slaveholders ranks. Their acceptance was grudging, as they carried the stigma of bondage in their lineage and, in the case of American slavery, color in their skin.[146] Free blacks were perceived as a continual symbolic threat to slaveholders, challenging the idea that black and slave were synonymous. Free blacks were seen as potential allies of fugitive slaves and slaveholders bore witness to their fear and loathing of free blacks in no uncertain terms."[147] For free blacks, who had only a precarious hold on freedom, slave ownership was not simply an economic convenience but indispensable evidence of the free blacks' determination to break with their slave past and their silent acceptance if not approval of slavery.[148] The historian James Oakes in 1982 notes that, The evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of black slaveholders were free men who purchased members of their families or who acted out of benevolence.[149] After 1810 southern states made it increasingly difficult for any slaveholders to free slaves. Often the purchasers of family members were left with no choice but to maintain, on paper, the owner-slave relationship. In the 1850s there were increasing efforts to restrict the right to hold bondsmen on the grounds that slaves should be kept as far as possible under the control of white men only.[150] In his 1985 statewide study of black slaveholders in South Carolina, Larry Koger challenged the benevolent view. He found that the majority of black slaveholders appeared to hold slaves as a commercial decision. For instance, he noted that in 1850 more than 80% of black slaveholders were of mixed race, but nearly 90% of their slaves were classified as black.[151] He also noted the number of small artisans in Charleston who held slaves to help with their businesses.

Distribution
Distribution of slaves

Percentage of slaves in each county of the slave states in 1860


Census Year 1790 1800 1810 # Slaves 697,681 893,602 1,191,36 # Free blacks 59,527 108,435 186,446 Total blacks 757,208 1,002,03 7 1,377,80 % Free blacks 7.9% 10.8% 13.5% Total US population 3,929,214 5,308,483 7,239,881 % Blacks of total 19% 19% 19%

2 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1,538,02 2 2,009,04 3 2,487,35 5 3,204,31 3 3,953,76 0 0 233,634 319,599 386,293 434,495 488,070 4,880,00 9

8 1,771,65 6 2,328,64 2 2,873,64 8 3,638,80 8 4,441,83 0 4,880,00 9 13.2% 9,638,453 18% 18% 17% 16% 14% 13%

13.7% 12,860,702 13.4% 17,063,353 11.9% 23,191,876 11.0% 31,443,321 100% 38,558,371

Source:"Distribution of Slaves in US History". Retrieved May 13, 2010.

Evolution of the enslaved population of the United States as a percentage of the population of each state, 17901860
Total Slave Population in US 17901860, by State[152] Census Year All States Alabama Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Florida 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860

694,207887,6121,130,7811,529,0121,987,4282,482,7983,200,600 3,950,546 47,449 117,549 253,532 342,844 435,080 4,576 19,935 47,100 111,115 2,648 951 310 97 25 54 8,887 6,153 4,177 4,509 3,292 2,605 2,290 1,798 25,717 39,310 61,745

Georgia 29,264 59,699 Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky 12,430 40,343 Louisiana Maine Maryland 103,036105,635 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire 157 8 New Jersey 11,423 12,422 New York 21,193 20,613 North Carolina 100,783133,296 Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania 3,707 1,706 Rhode Island 958 380 South Carolina 107,094146,151 Tennessee 13,584 Texas Vermont Virginia 292,627346,671 Wisconsin

105,218 80,561 111,502 10,851 15,017 168,824 795 108 196,365 44,535 392,518

149,656 917 190 126,732 69,064 107,398 32,814 10,222 7,557 10,088 205,017 211 48 251,783 80,107 425,153

217,531 747 3 165,213 109,588 2 102,994 1 32 65,659 25,096 3 2,254 75 245,601 6 403 17 315,401 141,603 469,757

280,944 331 3 16 182,258 168,452 89,737 195,211 58,240 1 674 4 245,817 3 64 5 327,038 183,059 449,087 11

381,682 210,981 244,809 90,368 309,878 87,422 236 288,548 384,984 239,459 58,161 472,528 4

462,198 2 225,483 331,726 87,189 436,631 114,931 15 18 331,059 402,406 275,719 182,566 490,865

Distribution of slaveholders
As of the 1860 Census, one may compute the following statistics on slaveholding:[153]

Enumerating slave schedules by county, 393,975 named persons held 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, for an average of about ten slaves per holder. As some large holders held slaves in multiple counties and are thus multiply counted, this slightly overestimates the number of slaveholders. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, yielding about 1 in 70 free persons (1.5%) being slaveholders. By counting only named slaveowners, this approach does not acknowledge people who benefited from slavery by being in a slaveowning household, e.g. the wife and children of an owner. Only 8% of all US families owned slaves,[154] while in the South, 33% of families owned slaves. According to recent research by historian Joseph Glatthaar, the number of soldiers of the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia who either owned slaves or came from slave owning households is "almost one of every two 1861 recruits". In addition he notes that, "Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery."[155] The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal: holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons,

or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 2030% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves). Nineteen holders of 500 or more slaves have been identified.[156] The largest slaveholder was Joshua John Ward, of Georgetown, South Carolina, who in 1850 held 1,092 slaves,[157] and whose heirs in 1860 held 1,130 or 1,131 slaves[156][157] he was dubbed "the king of the rice planters",[157] and one of his plantations is now part of Brookgreen Gardens.

Historiography
Main article: Historiography of the United States#Slavery The historian Peter Kolchin, writing in 1993, noted that until recently historians of slavery concentrated more on the behavior of slaveholders than on slaves. Part of this was related to the fact that most slaveholders were literate and able to leave behind a written record of their perspective. Most slaves were illiterate and unable to create a written record. There were differences among scholars as to whether slavery should be considered a benign or a harshly exploitive institution.[158] Much of the history written prior to the 1950s had a distinctive racist slant to it.[158] However by the 1970s and 1980s, historians, using archaeological records, black folklore, and statistical data were able to describe a much more detailed and nuanced picture of slave life. Far from slaves being strictly victims or content, historians showed slaves as both resilient and autonomous in many of their activities. Despite their exercise of autonomy and their efforts to make a life within slavery, current historians recognize the precariousness of the slave's situation. Historians writing during this era include John Blassingame (Slave Community), Eugene Genovese (Roll, Jordan, Roll), Leslie Howard Owens (This Species of Property), and Herbert Gutman (The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom).

Abraham Lincoln and slavery


Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery was one of the central issues in American history. Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency. Lincoln stood by the Republican Party platform in 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. Lincoln believed that the extension of slavery in the South, Mid-west, and Western lands would inhibit "free labor on free soil". In the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one; he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[2] In 1842, Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd, who was a daughter of a prominent slave-owning family from Kentucky.[3] Lincoln returned to the political stage as a result of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act and soon became a leading opponent of the "Slaveocracy"that is the political power of the southern slave owners. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, written to form the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, included language, designed by Stephen A. Douglas,[4] which allowed the settlers to decide whether they would or

would not accept slavery in their region. Lincoln saw this as a repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise which had outlawed slavery above the 36-30' parallel. During the American Civil War, Lincoln used the war powers of the presidency to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" but exempted border states and those areas of slave states already under Union control. As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves who had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control.

Youth
Abraham Lincoln was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky[5] (now LaRue County). His family attended a Separate Baptists church, which had strict moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery.[6] The family moved north across the Ohio River to free (i.e., non-slave) territory and made a new start in Perry County, Indiana. Lincoln later noted that this move was "partly on account of slavery" but mainly due to land title difficulties.[7] As a young man, he settled in the free state of Illinois.

Legal and political

"The Rail Candidate"Lincoln's 1860 candidacy is depicted as held up by the slavery issuea slave on the left and party organization on the right. Lincoln, the leader most associated with the end of slavery in the United States, came to national prominence in the 1850s, following the advent of the Republican Party, which opposed the expansion of slavery. Earlier, as a member of the Whig Party in the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln issued a written protest of the assembly's passage of a resolution stating that slavery could not be abolished in Washington, D.C.[8][9] In 1841, he won a court case (Bailey v. Cromwell), representing a black woman and her children who claimed she had already been freed and could not be sold as a slave.[10] In 1845, he successfully defended Marvin Pond (People v. Pond)[11] for harboring the fugitive slave John Hauley. In 1847, he lost a case (Matson v. Rutherford) representing a slave owner (Robert Matson) claiming return of fugitive slaves. While a congressman from Illinois in 1846 to 1848, Lincoln supported the Wilmot Proviso, which, if it had been adopted, would have banned slavery in any U.S. territory won from Mexico.[12] Lincoln had left politics until he was drawn back into it by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed territories to decide for themselves whether they would allow slavery. Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery and politically opposed to any expansion of it.[1] On October 16, 1854, in his "Peoria Speech", Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated en route to the presidency.[13] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[14] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it

because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..."[15] Lincoln was nominated as the Republican candidate for president in the election of 1860. Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery, but held that the federal government was prevented by the Constitution from banning slavery in states where it already existed. His plan was to halt the spread of slavery, and to offer monetary compensation to slave-owners in states that agreed to end slavery (see Compensated emancipation). He was considered a moderate within his party, as there were some who wanted the immediate abolition of slavery. In 1855, Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed, a personal friend and slave owner in Kentucky: You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. ... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. . . How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy [sic].[16]

Emancipation

Reproduction of Emancipation Proclamation at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center Many of Lincoln's public anti-slavery sentiments were shown in the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, his opponent who defeated him in the Senate race. Douglas

criticized him as being inconsistent, saying he altered his message and position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in order to appeal to the audience before him, as northern Illinois was more hostile to slavery than southern Illinois. The Republican Party was committed to restricting the growth of slavery, and its victory in the election of 1860 was the trigger for secession acts by Southern states. The debate before 1860 was mainly focused on the Western territories, especially Kansas and the popular sovereignty controversy. Though he thought it was essentially a reaffirmation of terms already in the Constitution, Lincoln was a driving force in 1861 for the compromise Corwin amendment. It was passed by Congress and two states, but was abandoned once the Civil War began. It would have explicitly prohibited congressional interference with slavery in states where it already existed. The Corwin amendment was a late attempt at reconciliation, but it also was a measure of reassurance to the slave-holding border states that the federal government was not intent on taking away their powers. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln prohibited his generals from freeing slaves even in captured territories. On August 30, 1861, Major General John C. Frmont, the commander of the Union Army in St. Louis, proclaimed that all slaves owned by Confederates in Missouri were free. Lincoln opposed allowing military leaders take executive actions that were not authorized by the government, and realized that such actions could induce slaveowners in border states to oppose the Union or even start supporting the enemy. Lincoln demanded Frmont modify his order and free only slaves owned by Missourians actively working for the South. When Frmont refused, he was replaced by the conservative General Henry Wager Halleck. Radical Republicans such as William P. Fessenden of Maine and Charles Sumner supported Frmont. Fessenden described Lincoln's action as "a weak and unjustifiable concession to the Union men of the border states" and Sumner writing in a letter to Lincoln how sad it was "to have the power of a god and not use it godlike." The situation was repeated in May 1862, when General David Hunter began enlisting black soldiers in the occupied district under his control. Soon afterwards Hunter issued a statement that all slaves owned by Confederates in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina were free. Despite the pleas of Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln ordered Hunter to disband the black 1st South Carolina Regiment and to retract his proclamation. At all times Lincoln insisted that he controlled the issueonly he had the war powers. On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"that is, what he can do in his official capacity as Presidentand his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new

views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[17] Just one month after writing this letter, Lincoln issued his first Emancipation Proclamation, which announced that at the beginning of 1863, he would use his war powers to free all slaves in states still in rebellion (as they came under Union control). Also revealing was his letter[18] a year later to James C. Conkling of August 26, 1863, which included the following excerpt: There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt, returning to their allegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with the Republican party policies but who held them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motiveeven the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept. Lincoln addresses the issue of his consistency (or lack thereof) between his earlier position and his later position of emancipation in an 1864 letter to Albert G. Hodges.[19] In that letter, Lincoln states his ethical opposition to slavery, that he did not think he had the constitutional power to abolish it everywhere initially, and that emancipation became necessary for the preservation of the Union.

Compensation
President Lincoln advocated that slave owners be compensated for emancipated slaves.[20] On March 6, 1862 President Lincoln in a message to the U.S. Congress stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The resolution was adopted by Congress, however, the Southern States refused to comply.[21] On July 12, 1862 President Lincoln in a conference with Congressmen from Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri encouraged their respective states to adopt emancipation legislation that gave compensation to the slave owners.[22] On July

14, 1862 President Lincoln sent a bill to Congress that allowed the Treasury to issue bonds at 6% interest to states for slave emancipation compensation to the slave owners. The bill was never voted on by Congress.[23] At the Hampton Roads Conference in 1865, Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens stated that President Lincoln was in favor of a "fair indemnity", possibly $400,000,000, in compensation for emancipated slaves.[24]

Colonization

One of several failed colonization attempts during Lincoln's presidency was on le Vache off the coast of Haiti. Colonization of freed slaves was long seen by many as an answer to the problem of slavery. One of President Abraham Lincoln's policies during his administration was the voluntary colonization of African American Freedmen. Historians have debated and have remained divided over whether Lincoln's racial views (or merely his acceptance of the political reality) included that African Americans could not live in the same society as white Americans. Benjamin Butler stated that Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that "racial harmony" would be possible in the United States.[25] One view is that Lincoln adopted colonization for Freedmen in order to make his Emancipation Proclamation politically acceptable.[25] This view has been challenged since President Lincoln's administration attempted to colonize freedmen in British Honduras after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863.[25] Since the 1840s Lincoln had been an advocate of the American Colonization Society program of colonizing blacks in Liberia. In an October 16, 1854,[26]:a speech at Peoria, Illinois[27] (transcribed after the fact by Lincoln himself),[26]:b Lincoln points out the immense difficulties of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way to quickly end slavery.[26]:c [28] My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,to their own native land. But a moments reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.[29] Lincoln mentioned colonization favorably in his first Emancipation Proclamation, and continued to support efforts at colonization throughout his presidency.[30] The first such scheme was attempted in late 1862, and consisted of an attempt to colonize the Chiriqu region of Panama, then a part of Colombia. Lincoln signed a contract with businessman Ambrose W. Thompson, the owner of the land, and appointed Kansas Senator Samuel Pomeroy to administer the project, with plans to send tens of thousands of African Americans. The plan was suspended in early October 1862 before a single ship sailed though, apparently due to diplomatic protests from neighboring Central American governments and the uncertainty raised by the Colombian Civil War (1860-1862). Lincoln hoped to overcome the latter complication by having Congress make provision for a treaty for African American emigration, much as he outlined in his Second Annual Message of December 1, 1862, but the Chiriqu plan appears to have died over the New Year of 1863 as revelations of the corrupt interest

of his acquaintance Richard W. Thompson and Secretary of the Interior John Palmer Usher likely proved too much to bear in political terms.[31] In December 1862, Lincoln signed a contract with businessman Bernard Kock to establish a colony on the Ile a Vache near Haiti. 500 freed slaves departed for the island from Fort Monroe, Virginia, though the project proved to be a disaster. Poor planning, an outbreak of smallpox, and financial mismanagement by Kock left the colonists under-supplied and starving, requiring the rescue of survivors by the United States Navy after only a year.[32] Lincoln also created an agency to direct his colonization projects. In 1862 he appointed the Rev. James Mitchell of Indiana to oversee colonization, and established a Bureau of Emigration under his head at the Department of the Interior. In addition to Panama and Haiti, Mitchell's office also oversaw attempts at colonization in British Honduras and elsewhere in the British West Indies. Lincoln believed that by dealing with the comparatively stable British Government, he could avoid some of the problems that plagued his earlier attempts at colonization with private interests.[33] He signed an agreement on June 13, 1863, with John Hodge of British Honduras that authorized colonial agents to recruit ex-slaves and transport them to Belize from approved ports in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.[34] Later that year the Department of the Interior sent John Willis Menard, a free African-American clerk who supported colonization, to investigate the site for the government. British authorities pulled out of the agreement in December, fearing it would disrupt their position of neutrality in the Civil War.[35] The question of when Lincoln abandoned colonization, if ever, has aroused considerable debate among historians.[36] The government funded no more colonies after the rescue of the Ile a Vache survivors in early 1864, and Congress repealed most of the colonization funding that July. Whether Lincoln's opinion had changed is unknown. He left no surviving statements in his own hand on the subject during the last two years of his presidency, although he apparently wrote Attorney General Edward Bates in November 1864 to inquire whether earlier legislation allowed him to continue pursuing colonization and to retain Mitchell's services irrespective of the loss of funding.[37][38] An entry in the diary of presidential secretary John Hay dated July 2, 1864, says that Lincoln had "sloughed off" colonization, though without much elaboration.[39] In a later report, General Benjamin F. Butler claimed that Lincoln approached him in 1865 a few days before his assassination, to talk about reviving colonization in Panama.[40] Historians have long debated the validity of Butler's account, as it was written many years after the fact and Butler was prone to exaggeration of his own exploits as a general.[41] Recently discovered documents prove that Butler and Lincoln did indeed meet on April 11, 1865, though whether and to what extent they talked about colonization is not recorded except in Butler's account.[42] On that same day, Lincoln gave a speech supporting a form of limited suffrage for blacks. Much of the present debate revolves around whether to accept Butler's story. If rejected, then it appears that Lincoln "sloughed off" colonization at some point in mid-1864. If it is accepted, then Lincoln remained a colonizationist at the time of his death. This question is compounded by the unclear meaning of Hay's diary, and another article by Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, which suggests that Lincoln intended to revive colonization in his second term. In either case, the implications for understanding Lincoln's views on race and slavery are strong.[43]

Citizenship and limited suffrage

Lincoln stated that Negroes had the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the first of the LincolnDouglas debates.[44] Publicly, Lincoln said he was not advocating Negro suffrage in his speech in Columbus, Ohio on September 16, 1859.[26]:d This might have been a strategy speech used to gain voters, as Douglas had accused Lincoln of favoring negroes too much as well.[45] In his second term as president, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech supporting a form of limited suffrage extended to what Lincoln described as the more "intelligent" blacks and those blacks who had rendered special services to the nation.[46] In analyzing Lincoln's position historian Eugene H. Berwanger notes: During his presidency, Lincoln took a reasoned course which helped the federal government both destroy slavery and advance the cause of black suffrage. For a man who had denied both reforms four years earlier, Lincoln's change in attitude was rapid and decisive. He was both open-minded and perceptive to the needs of his nation in a postwar era. Once committed to a principle, Lincoln moved toward it with steady, determined progress.[47]

Views on African Americans


Known as the Great Emancipator, Lincoln was a complicated figure who wrestled with his own views on race.[48] Lincoln's primary audience were white voters. Lincoln's views on slavery, race equality, and African American colonization are often intermixed.[48] During the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln expressed his contemporary view that he believed whites were superior to blacks.[48] Lincoln stated he was against miscegenation and blacks to serve as jurors. While President, as the American Civil War progressed, Lincoln advocated or implemented anti-racist policies including the Emancipation Proclamation and limited suffrage for African Americans.[48] Former slave and leading abolitionist, Frederick Douglass once observed of Lincoln: "In his company, I was never reminded of my humble origin, or of my unpopular color".[49] Douglass praised Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; however, he stated that Lincoln "was preeminently the white mans President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men."[50] Before his presidency, Lincoln lived in a middle-class, racially mixed neighborhood of Springfield; one of his long-time neighbors, Jameson Jenkins (who may have been born a slave), had come from North Carolina and was implicated in the 1850s as a conductor on the underground railroad. In 1861, Lincoln called on Jenkins to give him a ride to the train depot, where Lincoln delivered his farewell address before leaving Springfield for the last time.[51] Generations through changing times have interpreted independently Lincoln's views on African Americans.[48]

Education during the Slave Period


Throughout the colonial period, education for slaves two most prominent religious groups, Congregationalists and Anglicans, both saw the conversion of slaves as a spiritual obligation, and the ability to read scriptures was seen as part of this process (Monoghan, 2005). The Great Awakening served as a catalyst for encouraging education for all members of society.

While reading was encouraged, writing often was not. Writing was seen as a mark of status, and seen as unnecessary for many members of society, including slaves. Memorization, catechisms, and scripture formed the basis of what education was available. Despite the lack of importance generally given to writing instruction, there were some notable exceptions; perhaps the most famous of these was Phillis Wheatley, whose poetry won admiration on both sides of the Atlantic.

Legislation and prohibitions


North Carolina passed the first laws prohibiting slave education in 1740. While there were no limitations on reading, it became illegal to teach slaves to write. This legislation followed the Stono Rebellion. As fears proliferated among plantation owners concerning the spread of abolitionist materials, forged passes, and other incendiary writings, the need to restrict slaves ability to communicate with one another became more pronounced. For this reason, the State Assembly enacted the following: "Be it therefore Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all and every Person and Persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any Slave to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a Scribe in any Manner of Writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such offense forfeit the Sum of One Hundred Pounds current Money." While the law does not clarify any consequences for the slaves who might attain this more highly prized form of literacy, the financial consequences for teachers are clear. In 1755, Georgia modeled its own ban on teaching slaves to write after South Carolina's earlier legislation. Again, reading was not prohibited. Throughout the colonial era, reading instruction was tied to the spread of Christianity, so it did not suffer from restrictive legislation until much later (Monaghan, p.243). The most oppressive limits on slave education were a reaction to Nat Turner's Revolt in Southampton County, Virginia during the summer of 1831. This event not only caused shock waves across the slaveholding South, but it had a particularly far-reaching impact on education over the next three decades. The fears of slave insurrections and the spread of abolitionist materials and ideology led to radical restrictions on gatherings, travel, andof courseliteracy. The ignorance of the slaves was considered necessary to the security of the slaveholders (Albanese, 1976). Not only did owners fear the spread of specifically abolitionist materials, they did not want slaves to question their lot; thus, reading and reflection were to be prevented at any cost. Each state did not respond differently to the insurrection, a few examples are especially illustrative. While Mississippi already had laws designed to prevent slave literacy, in 1831 the state legislature passed a law that required all free African-Americans to leave the state so that they would not be able to educate or incite the slave population. The same legislation required that any black preacher would have to be given permission to speak before appearing a congregation. Delaware passed an 1831 law that prevented the meeting of a dozen or more blacks late at night; additionally, black preachers were to petition a judge or justice of the peace before speaking before any assembly. While states like South Carolina and Georgia had not developed legislation that prohibited education for slaves, other, more moderate states responded directly to the 1831 revolt. In 1832, Alabama enacted a law that fined anyone who undertook a slave's education between $250 and $500; the law also prohibited any assembly of African-Americansslave or freeunless five slaveowners were present or an AfricanAmerican preacher had previously been licensed by an approved denomination.

Even North Carolina, which had previously allowed free African-American children to attend schools alongside whites, eventually responded to fears of insurrection. By 1835, the public education of all African-Americans was strictly prohibited.

Education and subversion in the antebellum era


In examining the educational practices of the period, it is difficult to ascertain absolute figures or numbers. However, Genovese (1976) has explored some of these areas and offers some interesting insights. W. E. B. Du Bois and other contemporaries estimated that by 1860 up to 5% of slaves attained at least a marginal degree of literacy. Genovese comments: "this is entirely plausible and may even be too low" (p.562). Especially in cities and sizable towns, many free blacks and literate slaves had greater opportunities to teach others, and both white and black activists conducted illegal schools in cities such as Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Charleston, Richmond, and Atlanta. Even on plantations, the regular practice of hiring out slaves helped spread literacy. As seen in Frederick Douglass's own narrative, it was common for the literate to share their learning.[citation needed] As a result of the constant flux, few if any plantations would fail to have at least a few literate slaves. African-American preachers would often attempt to teach some of the slaves to read in secret, but there were very few opportunities for concentrated periods of instruction. Through spirituals, stories, and other forms of oral literacy preachers, abolitionists, and other community leaders imparted valuable political, cultural, and religious information. Even though mistresses were more likely than masters to ignore the law and teach slaves to read, children were by far the most likely to flout what they saw as unfair and unnecessary restrictions. While peer tutelage was limited in scope, many white children took it a step further. In fact, it was common for slave children to carry the white children's books to school; once there, they would sit outside and try to follow the lessons through the windows. While the punishments for white teachers varied from one state to another (and were generally far more severe in the deep South) punishments for slaves who desired to attain an education were generally left to their masters. Most often, slaves would be whipped, and according to Genovese's study of slave narratives "among the bitterest recollections of ex-slaves were those of whippings for trying to learn to read. Few things so outraged their sense of justice" (p.565).

References

Albanese, Anthony. (1976.) The Plantation School. New York: Vantage Books. William L. Andrews, ed. (1996). The Oxford Frederick Douglass Reader. New York: Oxford University Press. Genovese, Eugene. (1976). Roll, Jordan, Roll. New York: Vintage Books. Monaghan, E. J. (2005). Learning to Read and Write in Colonial America. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Palmer, R. Roderick, (1957). Colonial Statues and Present Day Obstacles Restricting Negro Education. In The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 525529. Webber, Thomas. (1978). Deep Like Rivers: Education in the Slave Quarter Community 18311865. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Woodson, C.G. (1915). The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861: A History of the Education of the Colored People of the United States from the Beginning of Slavery to the Civil War. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Education of freed people during the Civil War


The American Civil War led to enormous cultural changes throughout the United States. No group experienced a more radical shift than slaves who were freed as the Union Army swept through the South. While there was no initial plan for addressing the specific needs of the slave population, Union generals quickly recognized their impoverishment and suffering, and sought to provide education and material support both for civilians and for former slaves who enlisted with Union forces. As slaves were liberated by advancing forces, education quickly became one of their highest priorities. They saw literacy as a means of empowerment and social advancement. However, economic necessities, ongoing warfare, outbreaks of cholera and dysentery, and their overwhelming numbers made education both a dangerous and difficult endeavor. Throughout the South, generals and their staffs sought to establish and maintain order by providing basic education and training.

Contents

1 Education of Civilians 2 Virginia and North Carolina 3 The Gulf Region 4 Education in the Union Army 5 References

Education of Civilians
While the War Department made no initial provision for the slaves, many generals, most notably General William Tecumseh Sherman, advocated providing immediate aid and appealed to various philanthropic agencies to send teachers to provide religious and vocational instruction. General Ulysses S. Grant was the first to deliberately and formally respond to the plight of the AfricanAmerican community when he appointed General John Eaton as Superintendent for Negro Affairs in the Department of Tennessee. Eaton's authority ranged over an area that included not only Tennessee, but portions of Kentucky and Mississippi, as well. He worked to provide teachers with lodging, funding, transportation, and protection. He later divided the region into districts, developed standard curricula, and attempted to obtain standard textbooks. His efforts met with success. By 1864, the Department of Tennessee had established 74 schools in the region, serving more than 6200 pupils (Blassingame, p. 153).

Virginia and North Carolina


General Benjamin Franklin Butler, who was responsible for Virginia and North Carolina, was also proactive. He appointed Lt. Col. J. B. Kinsman as chief of a Department of Negro Affairs and directed

him to ensure that blacks would receive both secular and religious instruction. Philanthropic agencies provided teachers and supplies; the army provided funding, transportation, and lodging. Kinsman emphasized vocational training as well as literacy instruction. Former slaves learned carpentry, weaving, shoemaking, and other trades, as well as how to read and write. By 1864, North Carolina had more than 60 teachers and 3000 students in Kinsman's program (Blassingame, p. 153).

The Gulf Region


The Department of the Gulf, which encompassed Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, was overseen by Major General Nathaniel P. Banks, who established a Board of Education and sought to provide basic literacy and job training. The Board received a mandate to: establish schools in each parish, appoint teachers and require them to attend Board-sponsored annual training, develop a standard curriculum, levy taxes to provide funding, and provide books to students, at cost. In this region, however, there was widespread opposition to African-American education, and whites often refused to help teachers; some attacked the teachers and their schools directly. When planters refused to lodge teachers, banks threatened to remove their laborers, so the planters finally crumbled under the economic pressure. Despite these tensions, by the end of 1864, the Board had successfully established 95 schools, providing instruction to more than 9500 children and 2000 adults (Blasingame, p. 154).

Education in the Union Army


While the education of civilian populations was an admirable and necessary aim of the Union forces, a more pressing need was the instruction of former slaves who actually enlisted. Almost immediately, officers recognized the problems that resulted from illiteracy: verbal instructions and explanations cost valuable time, and despite the courage of these new troops, advancement without some degree of education was impossible, and this led to a loss of morale. Numerous regiments, including the 33rd, 55th, 67th, 73rd, 76th, 78th, 83rd, 88th, 89th, and the 128th received instruction from chaplains and Northern teachers. Not only was this training designed to improve the soldiers wartime efficacy, but by learning trades like bricklaying and carpentry, they felt more secure about their long-term stability. Just as General Benjamin Franklin Butler had taken an active role in civilian education in North Carolina and Virginia, when he united 37 regiments to form the Twenty-Fifth Corps in December 1864, he ordered that chaplains oversee schools in each regiment: thus, with a stroke of his pen, Butler guaranteed that 29,875 Negro soldiers would receive systematic instruction (p. 157). Under his orders, taxes were levied to fund these schools and officers were threatened with dishonorable discharges if their soldiers did not improve in terms of discipline and education. Further, soldiers were offered tangible rewards for attending classes. Not only did learning and literacy predicate promotion, but soldiers could receive popular books, especially the Bible, exemption from certain duties, and day passes through these programs. Thousands of freedmen received their first formal instruction through the involvement of the Union Army. These programs laid the groundwork for agencies such as the Freedmens Bureau and encouraged the intellectual and professional development of civilians and soldiers alike.

References
Blassingame, John W. (1965). The Union Army as an Educational Institution for Negroes, 1862-1865. In The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 34, No. 2. pp. 152-159.

Fen, Sing-nan. (1967). Notes on the Education of Negroes in North Carolina During the Civil War. In The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 24-31.