somewhat less, it still ranged from 96,445 up to 97,479 ; while the new Legislature stood 29 to 5 in the Senate and 73 to 24 in the IIouse. Yet the soldiers in the field—who had given 41,467 votes for Brough to 2,288 for Wallandigham—regretted that the election had not taken place before instead of soon after the sanguinary battle of Chickamauga; which, they safely calculated, had reduced Gov. Brough's majority by several thousand votes. Of the Western States, Indiana and Illinois chose only county or local officers this year; but the results as to these sufficed to show that a great revolution had taken place, and that their Democratic Legislatures, elected in 1862, and the U. S. Senators chosen " by them, were already disowned by their constituents. Iowa elected a Legislature almost entirely Tepublican, and a Governor and Judge of like faith by over 30,000 majority;” Wisconsin likewise—not voting till later"—rolled up a yery heavy majority" on every ticket, though she had been very evenly divided in 1862, and had only been saved by the votes of her soldiers in the field from going “Democratic at a Judicial election in April of this year. Minnesota of course went Re

* Charles R. Buckalew in Pennsylvania; Thomas A. Hendricks in Indiana.

*The rival candidates for Governor were Col. Wm. M. Stone (Republican) and Gen. S. Tuttle (Democrat), both at that time in the volunteer service. Their official vote is not at hand; but it was very nearly that cast at the same election for Judge of the Supreme Court, which was as follows:

Home. Soldiers'. Total. Dillon (Repub.) . . . . 68,306 17,435 85,741 Mason (Dem.). . . ...50,829 2,289 53,068 Repub. majority, 17,477 15,046 32,673

* Nov. 3.


publican now, by a majority largely above” that of last year. In Michigan—which only elected by general vote a Regent of her University in 1863, and this early in the year— there was an inconsiderable increase in the Republican majority and vote.”

In the Atlantic States, but especially in New York—the arena of the most formidable and bloodiest of the Draft Riots—the popular réaction evinced by the State Election of 1863 was most incontestable: Gov. Seymour's majority of over 10,000 in '62 being reversed by one of nearly 30,000 “for the Republican State ticket, with a corresponding Legislature; while Massachusetts—upon a far lighter vote than in ’62—gave a much larger majority.” And Maryland filled the measure of National triumph by electing Unionists to Congress in four of her five districts, and, for the first time, a distinctively Emancipation Controller and Legislature by some 20,000 majority. New Jersey chose only a Legislature this year, and hence evinced no essential change; while in Delaware, which had to choose specially a Representative in Congress, the Democrats withdrew their candidate on the eve of Election, insisting that the voters were to be overawed, if not worse,

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

THIE first fatal collision' between British soldiers and American pat

riots was popularly distinguished as

‘the Boston Massacre;’ and Crispus

Attucks, a mulatto fugitive from Massachusetts Slavery, was a leader of the patriot mob, and one of the four killed outright by the British fire. At the fight of Bunker IIill," Peter Salem, one of the enfranchised negroes who manned the slight breastworks so gallantly defended, shot dead Maj. Pitcairn, of the British marines, who, in the final struggle, had scaled the redoubt, shouting, “The day is our own " and was commanding the ‘Rebels’ to surrender. Negroes and mulattoes largely swelled the motley host of raw but gallant patriots suddenly collected’ around Boston by the tidings of Lexington, Concord, and I3unker IIill, and were freely accepted in regiments mainly White; though Maj. Samuel

Lawrence, of Groton, Mass., is reported as having, at an early day, commanded a company of negroes in the ‘Continental line. But Slavery was then cherished in nearly all the organized colonies; and its inconsistency with the embodiment of its victims in the armies of Freedom was felt to be so galling that the Committee of Safety judiciously resolved : “ “That it is the opinion of this Committee, as the contest now between Great l3ritain and the Colonies respects the liberties and privileges of the latter, which the Colonies are determined to maintain, that the admission of any persons, as soldiers,

[blocks in formation]

*March 5, 1770. * June 17, 1775.

* “ Nor should o forget to record that, as in the army at Cambridge, so also in this gallant band, the free negroes of the colony had their representatives. For the right of free negroes to bear arms in the public defense was, at that day, as little disputed in New England

as their other rights. They took their place, not in a separate corps, but in the ranks with the White man; and their names may le read on the pension-rolls of the country, side by side with those of other soldiers of the Revolution.” —Bancroft's History of the United Sta'es, vol. vii., p. 421. * May 20, 1775.

to an imperative summons to the field by giving an athletic slave his freedom on condition of his taking the place in the ranks assigned to his master. It is stated that, after the close of the war, quite a number who had thus earned their freedom were constrained to sue for it; and that the Courts of the “Old Dominion’— which had not yet discovered that a slave has no will, and so can make no legal and binding contract—uniformly sustained the action, and gave judgment that compelled the master to act as if he had been honest. The Legislature felt constrained, in 1783, to provide by law" that every slave who had enlisted upon the strength of such a promise should be set free accordingly; to which end, the Attorney-General was required to commence an action in favor of every such patriot soldier thereafter unjustly restrained of his liberty, who should be entitled, upon due proof of his averment, not only to his freedom, but to damages for past injury in withholding and denying it. South Carolina" authorized the enlistment of slaves—though not ostensibly as soldiers—by a vote" of her Provincial Congress, as follows: “I?esolred, That the Colonels of the several regiments of militia throughout the colony have leave to enroll such a number of able male slaves, to be employed as pioneers and laborers, as public exigencies require; and

emancipated in order that they might lawfully serve in the patriot forces; and the tendency to recruiting negroes was so strong that Gen. Gates was constrained to issue" the following stringent instructions to the patriot recruiting-officers: “You are not to enlist any deserter from the Ministerial army; nor any stroller, negro, or vagabond, or person suspected of being an enemy to the liberty of America; nor any under eighteen years of age. “As the cause is the best that can engage men of courage and principle to take up arms, so it is expected that none but such will be accepted by the recruiting-officer. The pay, provisions, etc., being so ample, it is not doubted but that the officers sent upon this service will, without delay, complete their respective corps, and march the men forth with to camp. “You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident in this country. The persons you enlist must be provided with good and complete arms.” In the Continental Congress, Mr. Edward Rutledge, of S. C., moved" that all negroes be dismissed from the patriot armies, and was supported therein by several Southern delegates; but the opposition was so formidable and so determined that the motion did not prevail." Negroes, instead of being expelled from the service, continued to be received, often as substitutes for ex-masters or their sons; and, in Virginia especially, it gradually became a custom among the superior race to respond

* July 10, 1775.

* So says Bancroft.

*IIening's Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. xi., p. 308.

* Sept. 26, 1775.

* John Adams, in his ‘Diary,” gives, under date of Sept. 28, 1775, an account of a conference with Messrs. Bullock and IIouston; wherein he says:

“These gentlemen give a melancholy account of the States of Georgia and South Carolina. They say that, if 1,000 regular troops should land in Georgia, and their commander be pro

vided with arms and clothes enough, and proclaim freedom to all the negroes who would join his camp, 20,000 negroes would join it from the two Provinces in a fortnight. The negroes have a wonderful art of communicating intelligence among themselves; it will run several hundreds of miles in a week or fortnight. They say their only security is this: that all the ‘King's friends' and tools of government have large plantations, and property in negroes; so that the slaves of the Tories would be lost, as well as those of the Whigs.”

* Nov. 20, 1775.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the negroes assured that they were far more likely to acquire personal liberty by adhering to the cause of American and of general freedom; and were forcibly reminded that—

“To none, then, is freedom promised, but to such as are able to do Lord Dunmore service. The aged, the infirm, the women and children, are still to remain the property of their masters—of masters who will be provoked to severity, should part of their slaves desert them. Lord Dunmore's declaration, therefore, is a cruel declaration to the negroes. He does not pretend to make it out of any tenderness to them, but solely upon his own account; and, should it meet with success, it leaves by far the greater number at the mercy of an enraged and injured people.”

Some of the negroes listened to the voice of the Royal charmer; who at one time had large expectations of raising Black troops for King George; but he finally explained" to his Government that a malignant fever, whereof he had already reported the existence,

“has carried off an incredible number of our people, especially the Blacks. Had it not been for this horrid disorder, I am satisfied I should have had 2,000 Blacks; with whom I should have had no doubt of penetrating into the heart of this colony.”

Still, negroes were enlisted on both sides; in the North, more on the side of Independence; while in the South a larger number fled from plantation Slavery to strike for King George against their ‘Rebel” masters.

An official return" of the negroes serving in the army under Washington's command, soon after the battle of Monmouth, makes their number 755; and this was prior to any systematic efforts to enlist them, and while their presence in the army was rather tolerated than invited.

Rhode Island, in 1778, authorized a general enlistment of slaves for the patriot army—every one to be free from the moment of enlisting, and to receive pay, bounty, &c., precisely like other soldiers. A Black regiment was raised under this policy, which fought bravely at the battle of Rhode Island,” and elsewhere; as many of those composing it had done prior to its organization. Massachusetts, New York,” and other States, followed the example of Rhode Island, in offering liberty to slaves who would enlist in the patriot armies; and the policy of a general freeing and arming of able and willing slaves was urged by IIon. Henry Laurens, of S. C., by his son Col. John Laurens, by Col. Alexander Hamilton, Gen. Lincoln, James Madison, Gen. Greene, and other ardent patriots. It is highly probable that, had the Revolutionary War lasted a few years longer, it would have then abolished Slavery throughout the Union. Sir IIenry Clinton, the King's commander in the North, issued “a Proclamation, premising that “the enemy have adopted a practice of enrolling negroes among their troops;” and thereupon offering to pay for “all negroes taken in arms,” and guaranteeing, to every one who should “desert the Rebel standard, full security to follow within these lines any occupation which he shall think proper.” Lord Cornwallis, during his Southern campaign, proclaimed freedom to all slaves who would join him; and his subordinates—Tarleton especially—took away all who could be induced to accompany them. Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Gordon,” estimates that this policy cost Virginia no less than 30,000 slaves in one year; most

* Oct. 18. “Nov. 12. "Dec. 31. "Jan. 16, 1776. *Nov., 1775. "June 26, 1776. "Aug. 24, 1778.

vol. II.-33

of them dying soon of small-pox and camp-fever. Thirty were carried off by Tarleton from Jefferson's own homestead ; and Jefferson characteristically says:” “Had this been to give them freedom, he would have done right.”

The War of 1812 with Great Britain was much shorter than that of the Revolution, and was not, like that, a struggle for life or death. Yet, short as it was, negro soldiers—who, at the outset, would doubtless have been rejected—were in demand before its close. New York authorized; the raising of two regiments of “freemen of color”—to receive the same pay and allowances as Whites—and provided that “any able-bodied slave” might enlist therein “with the written assent of his master or mistress,” who was to receive his pay aforesaid, while the negro received his freedom: being manumitted at the time of his honorable discharge.

Gen. Jackson's employment of Blacks in his famous defense of New Orleans—his public and vigorous reprobation” of the “mistaken policy” which had hitherto excluded them from the service, and his emphatic attestation of their bravery and good conduct while serving under his eye —are too well known to require citation or comment.

When, upon hearing of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and still more, after the riotous massacre of Massachusetts volunteers in the streets of Baltimore, the city of New York blazed out in a fervid though not very profound enthusiasm, and military or

"Aug. 29, 1778. "Act of March 20, 1781. * June 30, 1779. * Dated Paris, July 16, 1788.

*Letter to Gordon aforesaid. * Oct. 24, 1814. * Proclamation dated Mobile, Sept. 21, 1814.

« 上一頁繼續 »