[5] "Perambulations of Cosmopolite, or Travels and Labors in Europe and America," 95.

[6] Ibid., 93.

[7] Ibid., _pa.s.sim._

[8] Biography and Miscellany, 30.

[9] "A Journey from Babylon to Jerusalem or the Road to Peace and True Happiness," 71.

[10] "A Journey from Babylon and Jerusalem," 71.

[11] Ibid., 72.

[12] "History of Cosmopolite," 544-546.

THE ATt.i.tUDE OF THE FREE NEGRO TOWARD AFRICAN COLONIZATION

In the midst of the perplexities arising from various plans for the solution of the race problem one hundred years ago, the colonization movement became all things to all men. Some contended that it was a philanthropic enterprise; others considered it a scheme for getting rid of the free people of color because of the seeming menace they were to slavery. It was doubtless a combination of several ideas.[1] Furthermore, the meaning of colonization varied on the one hand according to the use the slave-holding cla.s.s hoped to make of it, and on the other hand according to the intensity of the attacks directed against it by the Abolitionists and the free colored people because of the acquiescent att.i.tude of colonizationists toward the persecution of the free blacks both in the North and South.[2]

Almost as soon as the Negroes had a chance to express themselves they offered urgent protest against the policy of removing them to a foreign land. Before the American Colonization Society had scarcely organized, the free people of Richmond, Virginia, thought it advisable to a.s.semble under the sanction of authority in 1817, to make public expression of their sentiments respecting this movement. William Bowler and Lenty Craw were the leading spirits of the meeting. They agreed with the Society that it was not only proper, but would ultimately tend to benefit and aid a great portion of their suffering fellow creatures to be colonized; but they preferred being settled "in the remotest corner of the land of their nativity." As the president and board of managers of the Society had been pleased to leave it to the entire discretion of Congress to provide a suitable place for carrying out this plan, they pa.s.sed a resolution to submit to the wisdom of that body whether it would not be an act of charity to grant them a small portion of their territory, either on the Missouri River or any place that might seem to them most conducive to the public good and their future welfare, subject, however, to such rules and regulations as the government of the United States might think proper.[3]

Many Negroes, however, emigrated from this State during later years.

Subsequent accounts indicate, too, that this increasing interest in colonization among the colored people of that Commonwealth extended even into North Carolina.[4]

Farther north we observe more frequent and frank expressions of the att.i.tude of the colored people toward this enterprise. When the people of Richmond, Virginia, registered their mild protest against it, about 3,000 free blacks of Philadelphia took higher ground.[5] Because their ancestors not of their own accord were the first successful cultivators of the wilds of America, they felt themselves ent.i.tled to partic.i.p.ate in the blessings of its "luxuriant soil," which their blood and sweat had moistened. They viewed with deep abhorrence the unmerited stigma attempted to be cast upon the reputation of the free people of color, "that they are a dangerous and useless part of the community," when in the state of disfranchis.e.m.e.nt in which they lived, in the hour of danger, they "ceased to remember their wrongs and rallied around the standard of their country." They were determined never to separate themselves from the slave population of this country as they were brethren by the "ties of consanguinity, of suffering, and of wrong."[6] They, therefore, appointed a committee of eleven persons to open correspondence with Joseph Hopkinson, member of Congress from that city, to inform him of the sentiments of the meeting, and issued an address to the "Humane and Benevolent Inhabitants of Philadelphia,"[7] disclaiming all connection with the society, questioning the professed philanthropy of its promoters, and pointing out how disastrous it would be to the free colored people, should it be carried out.[8]

Although a few persecuted Negroes of Maryland from the very beginning believed it advisable to emigrate, the first action of importance observed among the colored people of Baltimore, favoring colonization in Africa, was that of a series of meetings held there in 1826. The sentiment of these delegates as expressed by their resolutions was that the time had come for the colored people to express their interest in the efforts which the wise and philanthropic were making in their behalf. Differing from the people of Richmond they felt that, although residing in this country, they were strangers, not citizens, and that because of the difference of color and servitude of most of their race, they could not hope to enjoy the immunities of freemen. Believing that there would be left a channel through which might pa.s.s such as thereafter received their freedom, they urged emigration to Africa as the scheme which they believed would offer the quickest and best relief.[9]

We have not been able to find many records which give proof that in the States far South there was much opposition of the Negroes to the plan of removing the free people of color from the United States. We must not conclude, however, that this absence of protest from the free colored people in that section of the country was due to the fact that they almost unanimously approved the plan of African Colonization.[10] Consideration must be given to the fact that the free colored people in the Southern States did not exercise the privilege of free speech. Consequently, if there were even a large minority who opposed the plan, they were afraid to make their views known, especially when this movement was being promoted by some of the leading white people of that section.

Occasionally there arose among the colored people of the South advocates of colonization, setting forth the advantages of emigration in all but convincing style.[11] Such was a free man of color of Savannah in the year 1832. He had always viewed the principles on which the American Colonization Society was grounded as one of large policy, though he saw it was "aided by a great deal of benevolence." And when viewing his situation with those of his colored brethren of the United States he had often wondered what prevented them from rising with one accord to accept the offer made them, although they might sacrifice the comforts of their present situation. He had often almost come to the conclusion that he would make the sacrifice, and had only been prevented by unfavorable accounts of the climate. Hearing that Liberia needed help, he desired to go. He and the Negroes for whom he spoke seemed to be of an enterprising kind. He understood the branches of "wheel-wright, blacksmith, and carpentry," and had made some progress in machinery. He did not expect to go at the expense of the Society and therefore hoped to take with him something more than those who had emigrated on those terms.[12]

Another such freeman spoke from Charleston the same year. He had observed with much regret that Northern States were pa.s.sing laws to get rid of the free people of color driven from the South on account of hostile legislation.[13] He was also fearful as to the prospects of the free blacks even in favorable Southern cities like Charleston, where they were given a decided preference in most of the higher pursuits of labor. He believed, therefore, that emigration to Africa was the solution of their problem. He urged this for the reason that the country offered them and their posterity forever protection in life, liberty, "and property by honor of office with the gift of the people, privileges of sharing in the government, and finally the opportunity to become a perfectly free and independent people, and a distinguished nation."[14] The letters of Thomas S. Grimke written to the Colonization Society during these years show that other freedmen of Charleston driven to the same conclusions were planning to emigrate.[15]

Conditions in that State, however, forced some free Negroes to emigrate to foreign soil. A number of free colored people left Charleston, and settled in certain free States. After residing two or three years in the North they found out that their condition instead of improving had grown worse, as they were more despised, crowded out of every respectable employment, and even very much less respected. They, therefore, returned to their former home. On reaching Charleston, however, they were still dissatisfied with their condition. Changes, which had taken place during their absence from the State, made it evident that in this country they could never possess those rights and privileges which all men desire. Some of them resolved, therefore, to try their fortunes in Liberia.[16]

The Negroes in Alabama had also become interested in the movement during these years.[17] In writing to Mr. McLain, of Washington, S. Wesley Jones, a colored man of Tuscaloosa, said that save the Christian religion there was no subject of so much importance and that lay so near his heart as that of African Colonization. All that was necessary to change the att.i.tude on the part of the colored people was a "move by some one in whom the people have confidence to put the whole column in motion," and just "when there is a start made in Alabama the whole body of the free people of color will join in a solid phalanx." As for himself he had fully made up his mind to go to Liberia, but could not leave the United States until he had closed up a ten years' business, and if successful in collecting "tolerably well"

what was due him he would be able to go without expense to the Society.[18]

In July, 1848, this same writer addressed to Mr. McLain another letter in which he gave details of a trip he had made in an adjoining county in the interest of emigration to Liberia. During this trip he said he had found a few free colored people who, after he had talked with them on the subject, were of one accord that the best thing they could do for themselves was to emigrate to Liberia.[19] In another letter addressed to McLain by the same writer December 29, 1851, it was stated that the colonization movement was still growing in the State. He also said that "those of us who want to go to Liberia are men who have been striving to do something" for themselves and consequently have "more or less business to close up." Mention was also made of the fact that there were at Huntsville, in the northern part of the State, several who had in part "made up their minds to go and only wanted a little encouragement to set them fully in favor of Liberia."[20]

Although thus favorably received in the South, however, the Colonization Society met opposition in other parts. The spreading of the immediate abolition doctrine by men like Garrison and Jay had a direct bearing on the enterprise. The two movements became militantly arrayed against each other and tended to inflame the minds of the colored people throughout the country. The consensus of opinion among them was that the Colonization Society was their worst enemy and its efforts would tend only to exterminate the free people of color and perpetuate the inst.i.tution of slavery.[21] So general was this feeling that T. H. Gallaudet, a promoter of the colonization movement, writing to one of its officers in 1831, said that something must be done to calm the feelings of the colored people in the large cities of the North.[22] Their resentment seemed to be due not so much to the fact that they were urged to emigrate, but that a large number of the promoters of the enterprise seemed to feel that the free Negroes should be forced to leave.[23] Considering themselves as much ent.i.tled to the protection of the laws of this country as any other element of its population, they took the position that any free man of color who would accept the offers of the colonization movement should be branded as an enemy of his race. They not only demonstrated their unalterable opposition but expressed a firm resolve to resist the colonizationists even down to death.

The proceedings of these meetings will throw much light on the excitement then prevailing among the free people of color in the border and Northern States. In 1831 a Baltimore meeting, led by William Dougla.s.s and William Watkins, expressed the belief that the American Colonization Society was founded "more upon selfish policy than in the true principles of benevolence; and, therefore, as far as it regards the life-giving spring of its operations," that it was not ent.i.tled to their confidence, and should be viewed by them with that caution and distrust which their happiness demanded. They considered the land in which they had been born and bred their only "true and appropriate home," and declared that when they desired to remove they would apprise the public of the same, in due season.[24]

That same year a large meeting of colored people of Washington, in the District of Columbia, convened for the purpose of expressing their opinion on this important question. Although they knew that among the advocates of the colonizing system, they had many true and sincere friends, they declared that the efforts of these philanthropists, though prompted no doubt by the purest motives, should be viewed with distress. They further a.s.serted that, as the soil which gave them birth was their only true and veritable home, it would be impolitic, if they should leave their home without the benefit of education.[25] A meeting of the very same order of the free people of color of Wilmington, Delaware, that year, led by Peter Spencer and Thomas Dorsey, took the position that the colonization movement was inimical to the best interests of the colored people, and at variance with the principles of civil and religious liberty, and wholly incompatible with the spirit of the Const.i.tution and the Declaration of Independence of the United States.[26]

A meeting of free colored people held in Boston, Ma.s.sachusetts, in 1831, was of the opinion that none should leave the United States, but if there were or should be any expatriated in consequence of abuses from their white countrymen, it was advisable to recommend them to Haiti or Upper Canada where they would find equal laws. In regard to their being sent to Africa, because they were natives of that land, they asked: "How can a man be born in two countries at the same time?" In refutation of the argument made by the Colonization Society, that the establishment of the colony in Liberia would prevent the further operation of the slave trade, they said: "We might as well argue that a watchman in the city of Boston would prevent thievery in New York; or that the custom house officers there would prevent goods being smuggled into any other port of the United States."[27] Because there were in the United States much better lands on which a colony might be established, and at a much cheaper expense to those who promoted it, than could possibly be had by sending them into "a howling wilderness across the seas," they questioned the philanthropy of the promoters of African colonization and adopted resolutions in opposition to the movement.[28]

A public meeting of colored citizens of New York, with Samuel Ennals and Philip Bell as promoters, referred to the Colonizationists as men of "mistaken views" with respect to the welfare and wishes of the colored people. The meeting solemnly protested against the bold effort to colonize the oppressed free people of color on the ground that it was "unjust, illiberal and unfounded; tending to excite prejudice of the community."[29]

At a meeting of the free colored people of Brooklyn, promoted by Henry C.

Thompson and George Hogarth, it was resolved that they knew of no other country in which they could justly claim or demand their rights as citizens, whether civil or political, but in the United States of America, their native soil; and that they would be active in their endeavors to convince the members of the Colonization Society, and the public generally, that being men, brethren, and fellow citizens, they were like other citizens ent.i.tled to an equal share of protection from the Federal Government.[30]

The sentiment of a meeting at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1831, was that the American Colonization Society was actuated by the same motives which influenced the mind of Pharaoh, when he ordered the male children of the Israelites to be destroyed. They believed that the Society was the greatest of all foes to the free colored people and slave population; and that the man of color who would emigrate to Liberia was an enemy to the cause and a traitor to his brethren. As they had committed no crime worthy of banishment, they would resist all attempts of the Colonization Society to banish them from their native land.[31] A New Haven meeting of the Peace and Benevolent Society of Afric-Americans, led by Henry Berrian and Henry N. Merriman, expressed interest in seeing Africa become civilized and religiously instructed, but not by the absurd and invidious plan of the colonization society to send a "nation of ignorant men to teach a nation of ignorant men." They would, therefore, resist all attempts for their removal to the torrid sh.o.r.es of Africa, and would sooner suffer every drop of their blood to be taken from their veins than submit to such unrighteous treatment. From the colored people of Lyme, Connecticut, came the sincere opinion that the Colonization Society was one of the wildest projects ever patronized by enlightened men. The colored citizens of Middletown, chief among whom were Joseph Gilbert and Amos G. Beman, inquired "Why should we leave this land, so dearly bought by the blood, groans and tears of our fathers? Truly this is our home," said they, "here let us live and here let us die."[32]

The meeting in Columbia, Pennsylvania, the leaders of which were Stephen Smith and James Richard, expressed the opinion that African colonization was a scheme of the Southern planters and wicked device of slaveholders who were desirous of riveting more firmly, and perpetuating more certainly, the fetters of slavery by ridding themselves of a population whose presence, influence and example had a tendency (as they supposed) to produce discontent among the slaves, and to furnish them with inducements to rebellion.[33] A few weeks later a meeting was held at Pittsburgh under the leadership of J. B. Vashon and R. Bryan. The colored people of this city styled themselves as brethren and countrymen as much ent.i.tled to the free exercise of the elective franchise as any other inhabitants and demanded an equal share of protection from the Federal Government. They informed the Colonization Society that should their reason forsake them, then might they desire to remove. They would apprise them of that change in due season. As citizens of the United States, they mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, not to support a colony in Africa nor Upper Canada, nor yet emigrate to Haiti. Here they were born--here they would live by the help of the Almighty G.o.d--and here they would die.[34] Early in 1832, the colored people of Lewiston, Pennsylvania, in a meeting called by Samuel and Martin Johnston, expressed practically the same sentiments.[35] Through the influence of Jacob D. Richardson and Jacob G. Williams, an indignation meeting of the same kind was held at Harrisburg.[36]

The free people of color, a.s.sembled at Nantucket, Rhode Island, in 1831, under the leadership of Arthur Cooper and Edward J. Pompey, saw no philanthropy in the colonization movement, but discovered in it a scheme gotten up to delude them from their native land into a country of sickness and death.[37] A Trenton meeting promoted by Lewis Cork and Abner H.

Francis viewed the American Colonization Society as the most inveterate foe both to the free and slave man of color. These memorialists disclaimed all union with the Society and, once for all, declared that they would never remove under its patronage either to Africa or elsewhere.[38]

In New York there had been various expressions pro and con as to emigration to Liberia, but it does not seem that a large number of colored people of that city ever favored it. They believed rather in emigration to Canada.

The att.i.tude of the people of that State was shown in 1834 by the troubles of Reverend Peter Williams, Rector of St. Phillip's Church in the city of New York. Working through the Phoenix Society and the Anti-Slavery Society he had endeavored to convince the free colored people that the idea held out to men of color that no matter how they might strive to become intelligent, virtuous and useful, they could never enjoy the privilege of citizens in the United States, was erroneous. On the contrary, he believed that the Declaration of Independence, which his father had helped to maintain, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ had sufficient power to raise the people of color at some time to the rank of citizenship. Although his opposition never extended further than the expression of his views, there arose so much antagonism to him that he was asked by his bishop to resign from the Anti-Slavery Society, because of a disturbance in his church.[39]

There remained others, however, to continue the attack. At a meeting in 1839 the free people of color of New York entered a unanimous protest against the efforts of this body, reiterating the sentiment that the American Colonization Society was the source from which came the various proscriptions and oppressions under which they groaned.[40]

The att.i.tude of the free blacks of New York was probably better demonstrated on the occasion of the appearance of W. S. Ball, who had been sent to Liberia by the free colored people of Illinois to secure definite information concerning the advisability of emigrating to Africa. On his return to New York, he made a speech to a large a.s.sembly of colored people, some of whom desiring to see Liberia for themselves, had made preparations for a company to sail September, 1848. Ball expressed himself as well pleased with the country and after interesting the colored people of Illinois[40a] he hoped to return to Liberia with a large emigration. The colored people of New York received him in good faith. While the Liberian Commissioners were in session, President Roberts and his comrades were invited to come to the Anthony Street Church to inform them of the country.

After several speeches had been made, opportunity was given to the colored people to ask questions that had not been touched upon. This continued for some time and seemed to elicit information highly favorable to the cause, until a Mr. Morrill made his way up the aisle toward the platform. After having gained the attention of the audience with an air of superiority which showed he was accustomed to control audiences of colored people, he said that he had just come into town and was surprised to find his friends engaged in holding a colonization meeting. "That question," said he, "has been settled long ago! and the Liberia humbug--" At this point the hisses were so loud he could not be heard. Finally after much yelling and shouting of "hear him," the meeting became a bedlam and the presiding officer attempted to leave the chair. Finding order impossible the meeting was adjourned in an uproar. Amid cries of "a fight, a fight," women leaped over the pews and made their way to the doors. After some time had elapsed order was restored by clearing the house, but Morrill, who seemingly had come with the expressed purpose of breaking up the meeting, was not found in the chaos that ensued.[41]

Doubtless the best expression of antagonism to the American Colonization Society came from the Annual Convention of the Free Colored People held first in 1830 and almost annually thereafter in Philadelphia and other Northern cities almost until the Civil War. The Second Annual Convention showed an att.i.tude of militant opposition by emphatically protesting against any appropriation by Congress in behalf of the movement. The Third Annual Convention, which met in Philadelphia in 1833, probably represented the high water mark of their antagonism to this enterprise. There were 59 representatives of the free people of color from eight different States, namely, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Ma.s.sachusetts. The leaders of the movement were James Forten, Robert Douglas, Joseph Ca.s.sey, Robert Purvis, and James McCrummell. At an early stage in the proceedings of this Convention there prevailed a motion that "a committee consisting of one delegate from each of the States represented in the Convention, be appointed to draft resolutions expressive of the sentiments of the people of color in regard to the subject of colonization." Although these men were opposed to emigration to Africa, they favored a sort of colonization in some part of America, for the relief of such persons as might leave the United States on account of oppressive laws like those of Ohio.[42] The colored people would in this case give such refugees all aid in their power.

After having divested themselves of "all unreasonable prejudice," and reviewed the whole ground of their opposition to the American Colonization Society, with all the candor of which they were capable, they still declared to the world that they were unable to arrive at any other conclusion than that the life-giving principles of the Society were totally repugnant to the spirit of true benevolence; that the doctrines which the Society inculcated were hostile to those of their holy religion and in direct violation of the golden rule, and that "the inevitable tendency of this doctrine was to strengthen the cruel prejudice of their opponents, to still the heart of sympathy to the appeals of suffering Negroes, and r.e.t.a.r.d their advancement in morals, literature and science, in short, to extinguish the last glimmer of hope, and throw an impenetrable gloom over their fears and most reasonable prospects." All plans for actual colonization, therefore, were rejected.[43]

The movement thereafter continued to receive the attention of the people in the various parts of the country, being generally denounced. The Negroes of Ohio were prominent among those who opposed it.[44] Invited to hear a lecture by Mr. Pinney, a former governor of Liberia, then on a tour in the United States raising funds to purchase land there, the free blacks of Cincinnati held a meeting to protest. Arrogating to themselves the privilege of expressing the opinion of all the colored people of the United States, they respectfully declined the invitation for the reasons that the scheme was iniquitous in that it implied the a.s.sumption of the inequality of the free people of color.[45] They accordingly urged that such sums as their so-called friends might give for the purchase of land in Africa might be used for establishing schools and asylums for colored children in this country.[46] At a series of meetings of free colored people, held in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, during the winter of 1845-46, the Colonization Society was denounced as an organization whose proceedings tended to aggravate the injustice with which the free colored people were treated in this country. It was called the greatest antagonist which colored people had to meet and put down, before they could "stand erect in this country."

During the meeting a very bitter spirit was shown toward the white race.

They pa.s.sed resolutions declaring that the colored people were ent.i.tled to all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the whites and pledged themselves never to rest until they had redressed their wrongs and gained their rights.[47]

Another important instance of the opposition of the colored people of the North and West may be observed in the proceedings of a meeting held in Cincinnati. Mr. Vashon, a free man of color of Pittsburgh, had a motion pa.s.sed in one of their anti-slavery meetings in that city, "declaring the Colonization Society inimical to the best interests of the free colored population of the country, and unworthy of the support of the churches."

After speeches had been made by Vashon and Henry Gloster, a free man of color from Michigan, the original motion was pa.s.sed with but one or two dissenting voices in spite of the efforts to amend it. It is probable that the amendments proposed were to soften the tone of the original motion, but no mention was made of them other than to state that they were offered by the opposition.[48]

Numerous other meetings were held to continue the expression of the same sentiments. At a meeting in Boston in 1847 the Colonization Society was referred to as the expatriating inst.i.tution which would never be able to expel "Americans by birth" pledged never to leave their native land.[49]

A State convention of colored people of New York held during three days in the capital at Albany, 1851, unanimously expressed their pleasure at the failure of the Colonization Society of that State to obtain an appropriation from the Legislature.[50] At another meeting at Albany in 1852, Reverend J. W. C. Pennington and Dr. J. McCune Smith were instrumental in inducing the meeting to adopt an able refutation of Governor Hunt's views in favor of a similar appropriation.[51] Another State Convention of Colored People of Ohio convened in Cincinnati, unconditionally condemned the Society because its policy of expatriating the free colored people was merely to render slave property more secure and valuable.[52] John M. Langston was the chairman of this meeting.

Other such meetings held in Rochester, New York, and New Bedford, Ma.s.sachusetts, about the same time, expressed similar sentiments.[53] On the occasion of the formation of a County Colonization Society as a result of a visit of J.B. Pinney to Syracuse, resolutions expressing deep regret that the influence of the Society had extended to that section[54] were unanimously pa.s.sed. At another meeting at Providence, the same year, the Colonization Society was denounced because of the plea that its motive in promoting emigration to Africa was to Christianize the heathen.[55]

A series of meetings were held in Ohio to oppose the efforts of colonization agents.[56] A Columbus meeting of 1849 considered such workers inveterate enemies. Another meeting in the same place in 1851 referred to one of their memorials as containing the false statement that the colored people of Ohio were prepared to go to Liberia. They considered N. L. Rice and David Christy, promoters of the colonization scheme in that State, avowed friends of slavery and slaveholders.[57] In a subsequent State Convention in 1853, they urged every free black to use his influence against any bill offered in any State, or national legislature to appropriate money for this enterprise.[58] When "Cushing's Bill" to facilitate colonization was offered, the free people of Cincinnati, Ohio, held an indignation meeting in 1853 to organize their friends to prevent its pa.s.sage.[59]

The most distinguished Negroes of the country, too, were using the rostrum and the press to impede the progress of the American Colonization Society.

Prominent among these protagonists were Samuel E. Cornish, and Theodore S.

Wright, who without doubt voiced the sentiments of the majority of the free colored people in the North. These leaders took occasion in 1840 to attack Theodore Frelinghuysen and Benjamin Butler who had been reported as saying that the colonization project had been received with delight by the colored people.[60] Answering this a.s.sertion, they maintained that "if it was said of Southern slaves--if it had been a.s.serted that they yearned for Africa or indeed, any part of the world, even more unhospitable and unhappy, where they might be free from their masters, there probably would have been no one to dissent from that opinion." But to prove that this was not the situation among the free people of color these spokesmen related numerous facts, showing that in various conventions from year to year the free blacks had protested against emigration to Africa.[61]

The greatest enemy of the Colonization Society among the freedmen, however, was yet to appear. This was Frederick Dougla.s.s. At the National Convention of Free People of Color, held at Rochester, New York, in 1853, he was called upon to write the address to the colored people of the United States. A significant expression in this address was: "We ask that no appropriation whatever, State or national, be granted to the colonization scheme. We would have our right to leave or remain in the United States placed above legislative interference."[62] He had already gone on record in writing to Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe in reply to her inquiry as to the best thing to be done for the elevation of the colored people. "Evidently the Society," said he, "looks upon our extremity as their opportunity and whenever the elements are started against us they are stimulated to immeasurable activity. They do not deplore our misfortunes but rather rejoice in them."[63] He referred to the Society as the twin sister of slavery, still at her post fostering prejudice against the colored man and scattering abroad her hateful unphilosophical dogmas as to the inferiority of the Negro and the necessity of his expatriation for his elevation and that of his white country men. "The truth is," said he, "we are here and here we are likely to remain. Individuals emigrate, nations never. We have grown up with this republic and I see nothing in her character or find in the character of the American people as yet, which compels the belief that we must leave the United States."[64]

All the free persons of color, however, did not continue to think on this wise. After the ebullitions of sentiment had ceased, a few Negroes began to think that emigration was not an unmixed evil. They were driven to this position in various ways. Some desired to flee from increasing persecution then afflicting free Negroes both in the North and in the South; others were won over by such inducements for commercial advancement as a pacification of Yoruba seemed to offer in opening up the Soudan; and not a few like Alexander Crummell[65] and Daniel A. Payne, who, although opposed to the expatriation of their race, favored colonization so far as it would redeem Africa. Even Frederick Dougla.s.s, in answering the charge that the free people of color had been prejudiced against efforts to redeem Africa, stated that they were very much in favor of such a work, but objected to the efforts of the Colonization Society because of its "defect of good motives,"[66] A number of Negroes yielded also to the logic of the Colonizationists, who in trying to disabuse their minds of the thought that it would be a disgrace to leave this country as exiles, held up to them the example of the Pilgrim Fathers who left their native land to obtain political and religious liberty. Furthermore, some Negroes like Martin R.

Delaney, who had at first fearlessly opposed the colonization of the blacks in Africa, began during the fifties to promote the emigration of the free people of color to other parts. Many of this persuasion went to Canada West and some few to Trinidad.[67]

Although antagonism to African Colonization was p.r.o.nounced in the Northern free States, there were several intelligent colored men who were strongly in favor of it. It was said, however, that such Negroes had usually been educated or aided in some way by the American Colonization Society. One of this cla.s.s of spokesmen was George Baltimore, of Whitehall. In reading in the _National Watchman_ a notice for a call for a national convention of colored people to be held in Troy, in 1847, he availed himself of the opportunity to speak for the Colonization Society. Referring to the suggestions set forth in the call, the writer said that he could adopt all of them excepting the one to recommend emigration and colonization not of Africa, Asia, or Europe. He considered this a fling at the American Colonization Society, and those people of color who were desirous of going to their fatherland.[68] Another spokesman of this order was Alphonso M.

Sumner, of Philadelphia. Personally he was in favor of emigrating from the United States and was of the opinion that, at that time at least, colonization in Liberia offered the only tangible means of attaining their wishes. He believed that the abolition of the slave trade could be attained in no other way, but like most colored men in the free States, favoring colonization, he was desirous of knowing something about the land before emigrating thereto.[69]