The Fight for Equal Opportunity: Blacks in America: From Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

twenty-first.

CHAPTER 1

IN THE BEGINNING

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses how Blacks became slaves, were freed, and at some point in the nineteenth century enjoyed—on paper—all the civil rights afforded to any American citizen. Near the end of the nineteenth century, however, the Supreme Court nullified those civil rights, making Blacks half free. Blacks ended the nineteenth century as second-class citizens. Nevertheless, during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Constitutional Amendments became law. These Constitutional amendments were instrumental in the fight for equality during the twentieth century. The chapter is divided into sections covering the following:

Slaves and Free Blacks describes the beginning of slavery in North America.

The American Revolution discusses how the ideal of equality and fighting for the freedom of others helped some Blacks win their own freedom.

A Prologue to the Civil War explains how the Civil War was started and what it was about.

The Civil War shows how the Civil War came to be solely about slavery and how Blacks got a chance to fight for their own freedom.

Reconstruction discusses how some Americans—Blacks and Whites—came together and passed laws that would eventually be used to improve equality of opportunity not only for Blacks, but for all Americans.

The Chapter Summary reviews the major points in Chapter 1.

SLAVES AND FREE BLACKS

By most accounts, in 1619, twenty slaves arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in North America. They arrived on a Dutch ship, possibly a ship from the Caribbean.¹⁰ Some of the new arrivals came directly from Africa, but most did not. Those who did not come directly from Africa were familiar with European culture and had Hispanic and English names. They were probably mixed-race individuals, the descendants of Europeans who set up trading factories along the coastline of Africa during the fifteenth century.¹¹

Europeans working in or operating these trading factories cohabitated with and in some cases married Africans, thereby producing Creole, or mixed-race, communities. Men of color from such communities accompanied Columbus to the Americas and marched with Balboa, Cortes, De Soto, and Pizarro. So, while all twenty of the Jamestown slaves were of African descent, they came from different subgroups.¹²

The twenty slaves were sold to Virginia tobacco farmers. It is not clear whether the Virginians employed the new arrivals as slaves or servants. At least one historian, John Hope Franklin, states that the new arrivals were listed as servants in the census count of 1623 and 1624.¹³ For fifty years these new arrivals worked side by side with English and Irish servants in the tobacco fields of the region. They lived and worked together with little regard to racial lines. During this period there were only a small number of people of African descent residing in Virginia, about 5 % of the population.¹⁴ Their status as slaves may have been undefined, but they arrived as slaves and were sold as slaves.

Although they were mistreated and belittled, some slaves actually escaped bondage and gained a reasonable amount of prosperity; many became independent farmers. Many indentured servants also became independent farmers after laboring a number of years for their masters in exchange for their passage to the English colony. These independent farmers, Blacks and Whites, became very dissatisfied; they could not get good farming land because the best land was already owned by planters. Independent farmers had two choices: work for planters or work tobacco farms on the frontier or borderland and continuously fight the native Indians. Virginia’s government, a tool of the planters, had little sympathy for independent farmers.

In 1676, the farmers’ dissatisfaction and anger resulted in an uprising known as Bacon’s Rebellion, the first North American rebellion. It was named after its leader, Nathaniel Bacon, an aristocrat who sympathized with the poor farmers.

The farmers tried establishing farms on the frontier, but constantly fighting Indians was too much for them. So they decided that a rebellion against the planters was the best way to proceed. However, two things happened. An English warship arrived, and Bacon himself died. Needless to say, the independent farmers did not succeed in their rebellion against the prosperous planters or more powerful farmers. One of the last to surrender was a mixed military group of Whites and Blacks, eighty black slaves and twenty white indentured servants.¹⁵

After the rebellion and the planters’ victory, indentured servants who had become independent farmers demanded their rights as Englishmen, regardless of the fact that some of the independent farmers were Africans. Slaves had no such rights. However, for cultural and legal reasons, Englishmen could not be enslaved.¹⁶ Since indentured servants were fast becoming independent farmers, Virginia planters were suffering from a serious labor shortage. They needed to speed up the clearing of forests and to cultivate huge tobacco crops. Planters could no longer meet their labor needs with Indians, indentured servants, and an informal slave system.

Virginia planters were familiar with the use of African slaves in the Caribbean, where it had been recognized that—being easily identified—Africans had difficulty escaping. Also, since Africans were not Christians, they could be punished with impunity; and the supply of Africans was plentiful. Therefore, Virginia farmers decided to use African slaves to solve their labor problem. They imported African slaves from the Caribbean, slaves who were already familiar with plantation agriculture.

Virginia lawmakers backed up the planters’ decision by passing a series of laws between 1667 and 1671 that, among other things, eliminated baptism or Christianity as a qualifier for African servants’ eventual freedom. African servants were eventually declared to be slaves. With this law, lawmakers eased the minds of slave owners who feared that baptism would mean freedom, or that the message of salvation contained within it the possibility of deliverance from slavery. In 1692 Virginia lawmakers passed another law that outlawed marriage and sexual relations between Whites and Blacks. Eliminating marriage was probably more successful than eliminating sexual relations between the two groups. But the goal of the law was clearly to provide more separation between the races; and to this end, the law seems to have been successful.

Finally, in 1705 Virginia lawmakers passed a law that ended all speculation as to whether Blacks or Africans were indentured servants or slaves. The law declared that all servants imported or brought into the country who were not Christians in their native country shall be slaves.

These laws gave Virginia farmers a governable labor force that could be identified by race or by skin color. Also, now even the poorest Whites could identify with rich farmers simply because of skin color. So rather than class, race became the dividing line in Virginia politics. All North American colonies followed the pattern established in Virginia. "And with it ‘black’ and ‘African’ became synonymous with ‘slave’ and ‘inferior’ in the eyes of white America for generations to come.

To further understand what occurred, consider the following quote:

In America, with only a few early and insignificant exceptions, all slaves were Africans, and almost all Africans were slaves. This placed the label of inferiority on black skin and on African culture. In other societies, it had been possible for a slave who obtained his freedom to take his place in his society with relative ease. In America, however, when a slave became free, he was still obviously an African. The taint of inferiority clung to him. Not only did white America become convinced of white superiority and black inferiority, but it strove to impose these racial beliefs on the Africans themselves. Slave masters gave a great deal of attention to the education and training of the ideal slave. In general, there were five steps in molding the character of such a slave: strict discipline, a sense of his own inferiority, belief in the master’s superior power, acceptance of the master’s standards, and, finally, a deep sense of his own helplessness and dependence. At every point this education was built on the belief in white superiority and black inferiority. Besides teaching the slave to despise his own history and culture, the master strove to inculcate his own Value system into the African’s outlook. The white man’s belief in the African’s inferiority paralleled African self-hate.¹⁷

Because slavery was based on race, slaves could escape slavery but could not escape their skin color, which branded them as inferior in the eyes of Whites and even among themselves. Based on what Blacks had to overcome after slavery, it is not difficulty to understand why the fight for equality of opportunity extended into the twenty-first century.

FREE BLACKS

As has already been stated, a number of free Blacks were living in Virginia in the seventeenth century. Because of their race, they were labeled inferior. After Virginia converted from a society with slaves to a slave society, additional controls were placed on free Blacks. There was an undisputed link between treatment of free Blacks and the codification of slavery. In the beginning very few restrictions were imposed on free Blacks. When slavery was legalized during the 1660s, however, slave holders began to worry that activities of free Blacks could negatively impact slave control. So they began a campaign to restrict the activities of free Blacks, thereby limiting the freedoms to which free Blacks had formerly been entitled.¹⁸ Thus began the establishment of a psychological mindset that would negatively influence the freedoms and opportunities of Blacks for centuries.

The campaign to control free Blacks was more profound in southern states, but it also took hold in northern states. Slavery was not as prevalent in northern states as in southern states, perhaps because the northern economy was primarily commercial and did not require a large labor force. Nevertheless, northern resentment against Blacks manifested itself in many forms. Free Blacks could not attend most public schools, did not have interstate travel rights, could not vote in many states, and often faced angry white mobs. Northern poor Whites resented competition from free Black laborers.

Free Blacks were located in three regions. The Northern region included Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and the New England States—a region where, alongside the resentment, many of slavery’s critics lived. The Upper South included Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C.—known for large tobacco plantations. The Lower or Deep South included South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana—known for rice and cotton plantations.¹⁹

We have already discussed how free Blacks fared in the Northern region. In the Lower South only a small percentage of the Black population was classified as free—about 1%, referred to as Creoles, many of whom were wealthy light-skinned aristocrats. Some Creoles looked down on dark-skinned Blacks, and many despised the stigma that was associated with being Black.²⁰ Most of these free Blacks worked as carpenters, masons, mechanics, and tailors. Some owned slaves themselves, many of whom were their family members.²¹In the Upper South a slightly larger percentage of the Black population was classified as free, but life was much more difficult for them; many were poorer, less educated, and lived in more rural areas than Blacks in the rest of the nation. Most worked along with slaves as farmhands and factory hands, and as a result were geographically and psychologically connected with the enslaved. Free Blacks in the Upper South were often involved in the planning and carrying out of slave rebellions.

In response to the violence and mistreatment, free Blacks established independent institutions within their own communities. Churches were among the first of these institutions. Most free Black churches were in the North. Among the most famous were the African Methodist Episcopal and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion church. Generally, Blacks could not attend white public schools; so many Black communities established their own schools. The many other community organizations included literary clubs, debating societies, secret fraternal organizations, Freemasons, and Odd Fellows. Many free Blacks reacted differently to their oppression; some even joined slaves in attempts to violently overthrow slavery. Yet most, like Fredrick Douglass, William Wells Brown, and Ellen and William Craft, worked hard to improve the lives of free Blacks and those Blacks who were still slaves. They held the view that free Blacks were not free and could not be free as long as slavery existed.

After discussing the beginning of slavery and the lot of free Blacks, we will now examine an event that probably contributed to the mindset for ending slavery: the American Revolution.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

During the American Revolution, slaves were able to take advantage of the equalitarian ideal espoused during the period. Slaves demanded their freedom, and free Blacks demanded equality. Influenced by the Declaration of Independence, which seems to be guided by a belief in universal equality, some Americans began to be against slavery, especially where slaves were few and not an economic necessity.

Virginia, where the first North American slave ship landed, and its twelve sister colonies were under British rule when slavery was introduced to North America. The American Revolution was caused by the desperate desire of the North American colonies to be free of British rule. These colonies wanted their independence—while at the same time, they were willing to hold other human beings in bondage and not allow them to have their freedom. This was a contradiction that bothered many slave holders and non-slavers alike. Some slave holders freed their slaves, and some non-slave holders joined the movement against slavery. Another source for the new push for liberty and equality was the Christian or Protestant principle of all being equal in the eyes of God. It is also possible that some Southerners were willing to fight for freedom from British rule because they feared that the British would outlaw slavery.²²

The libertarian ideology initiated by the American Revolution extended beyond the thirteen colonies to the rest of mainland North American. Spain, France, the Caribbean, and South America also began to attack slavery. The Spanish king even attempted to outlaw the mistreatment of slaves. The king’s attempt failed, but slaves saw these occurrences as moves in the right direction.

In 1794 France outlawed slavery, but Napoleon reintroduced it in 1802 during the French Revolution. Also during this period, Haiti, through an armed revolution, gained its freedom from France. Haiti’s successful revolution gave new impetus to Blacks or slaves, affirming their belief in their ability to eventually gain their freedom. Even for those who were not yet able to gain their freedom, Haiti’s success gave them the ability to negotiate for better treatment. During the European Revolution of 1848, the French again freed its slaves, this time for good. The British Empire had freed its slaves fifteen years earlier.²³

As for North America, its northern colonies eventually outlawed slavery. The process was grudgingly slow, however, and lingering racism persisted. North America’s northern colonies were not economically dependent on slavery. But the southern colonies were not so accommodating to the ideal of freeing slaves. Slavery was an economic necessity for them. In fact, slavery actually increased in the southern colonies, and stricter laws were passed to better control both free Blacks and slaves.

To decrease the effect of the revolutionary ideology or the Declaration of Independence and Declaration of the Rights of Man, a new twisted ideology was created. If indeed all men were created equal and some men were slaves—the argument ran—then, perhaps, those who remained in the degraded condition of slavery were not fully men after all.²⁴ The not fully men after all ideology was responsible, at least in part, for the overall number of slaves increasing in spite of the number freed.

During the American Revolution a significant number of slaves gained their freedom by performing military service for the colonies and also for the British. Military service was a way out for Blacks or slaves—a way to gain freedom that came into its own during the American Revolution. During the Revolution and before, Blacks served mostly in mixed units, although there were some all-Black units.

Fourteen years after the American Revolution ended, the slave trade was officially outlawed in North America on March 2, 1807, only to be reopened at a later date. Reopening was first advocated in 1839, but finally occurred in the 1850s, thus further increasing the number of slaves in the South.²⁵ Nevertheless, conditions for Blacks, free and un-free, were positively affected by the American Revolution. The effect was lingering and possibly contributed to the start of the Civil War, which many believe was primarily a fight to maintain slavery.

A PROLOGUE TO THE CIVIL WAR

The American Revolution may have been, in part, responsible for the North abolishing slavery. But in the South, perhaps primarily because slavery was an economic necessity, slavery was not abolished. In fact, as has been stated, slavery increased in the South and, in an attempt to reduce the effects of the right of every human being to be free espoused by the American Revolution, slaves became known as not being whole persons.

Following the Revolutionary War, the goal was to create a strong national government with fair representation for both North and South. At the time, the South was the largest region of the country and was expected to have the largest population and the most representatives. However, a large part of the South’s population consisted of slaves, who were normally not represented at all. As a compromise between North and South for the purpose of apportioning representation, it was decided that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person.²⁶ This solution was intended to help boost the South’s population and bring the South’s representation in line with the size of the region. However, the scheme did not work; the population concern was not solved.

Because slaves satisfied the South’s labor needs, immigrants did not migrate to the South. As a result, the South’s population did not increase. Counting slaves as three-fifths of a person helped, but not enough. Population in the North increased, surpassing the South’s population. Thus there was much more northern representation in federal government than southern representation.

In a further attempt to increase the South’s population and thereby its representatives, a few more slave states were admitted to the Union. When Missouri asked to join the Union as a slave state, northern politicians challenged the three-fifths compromise. They came up with another policy, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which stated that for every slave state admitted to the Union, a free state must also be admitted, and slavery must be prohibited from territories north of Missouri’s southern border. The separating line of the Missouri Compromise was 36 degrees, 30 minutes north latitude from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. The boundary became referred to as the Mason-Dixon Line, named after the two surveyors.

Most of the territories south of Missouri’s southern border belonged to Mexico, a newly independent nation. Texas was a part of Mexico, but it gained its independence and joined the Union as a slave state. Still, more territories were needed so additional slave states could be added to the Union. President James Polk, a person who favored slavery, owned slaves, and even allowed slave-trading in the White House, provoked a war with Mexico to obtain more territories. To make a long story short, Mexico’s army was no match for the United States Army; so, Mexico eventually sold the northern third of its territory to the United States for $15 million dollars, providing vast new territories for the expansion of slavery.

Soon after the settlement with Mexico, gold was discovered in California, an area acquired from Mexico. In what became known as the California Gold Rush, thousands of people began to flock to California, mostly northerners. California requested that it be admitted to the Union as a free state. At the time, however, there was no slave territory that could also be admitted to the Union in compliance with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, an act designed to keep free and slave states in balance. After prolonged, sometimes bitter, negotiations, Congress passed a series of acts that became known as the Compromise of 1850. Among the most controversial of the acts that passed were (1) California was admitted to the Union as a free state, unbalancing the 15 to 15 Senate seats to 16 to 15 in favor of the North; and (2) the Fugitive Slave Act, which held that not only runaway slaves, but even free or law-abiding Blacks could be enslaved or re-enslaved.

During this period, territory west and north of Missouri was beginning to be settled by pioneers. This prompted Stephen Douglas, the well-known senator from Illinois, to introduce a bill that if passed, would set up two territories: Kansas and Nebraska. To gain southern support, Senator Douglas suggested that these two new territories be allowed to choose for themselves between being a slave state or a free state. Because these territories were being established above the Mason-Dixon Line, the possibility of their becoming slave states angered northerners. Nevertheless, the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed

As it turned out, the northerners’ concern was misplaced because the climates of Kansas and Nebraska did not support cotton and other plantation-type crops that were normally worked by slaves. This was true for most of the territories taken from Mexico. This fact was not considered in the bitter political dispute, however. The North saw the new territories as lands where poor White settlers might prosper without fear of competition from slave labor. Therefore, northerners wanted the new territories to enter the Union as free states. Southerners were concerned that the institution of slavery might disintegrate under antislavery northerners. So southerners wanted slave