had toiled up from poverty, many ambitious
free persons of color, left the State for more congenial communities.

[Footnote 1: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina_, 578.]

[Footnote 2: _Laws of North Carolina, 1835_, C.6, S.2.]

The States of the West did not have to deal so severely with their
slaves as was deemed necessary in Southern States. Missouri found it
advisable in 1833 to amend the law of 1817[1] so as to regulate more
rigorously the traveling and the assembling of slaves. It was not
until 1847, however, that this commonwealth specifically provided
that no one should keep or teach any school for the education of
Negroes.[2] Tennessee had as early as 1803 a law governing the
movement of slaves but exhibited a little more reactionary spirit in
1836 in providing that there should be no circulation of seditious
books or pamphlets which might lead to insurrection or rebellion
among Negroes.[3] Tennessee, however, did not positively forbid the
education of colored people. Kentucky had a system of regulating the
egress and regress of slaves but never passed any law prohibiting
their instruction. Yet statistics show that although the education of
Negroes was not penalized, it was in many places made impossible by
public sentiment. So was it in the State of Maryland, which did not
expressly forbid the instruction of anyone.

[Footnote 1: _Laws of the Territory of Missouri_, p. 498.]

[Footnote 2: _Laws of the State of Missouri_, 1847, pp. 103 and 104.]

[Footnote 3: _Public Acts passed at the First Session of the General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee_, p. 145, chap. 44.]

These reactionary results were not obtained without some opposition.
The governing element of some States divided on the question. The
opinions of this class were well expressed in the discussion between
Chancellor Harper and J.B. O'Neal of the South Carolina bar. The
former said that of the many Negroes whom he had known to be capable
of reading, he had never seen one read anything but the Bible. He
thought that they imposed this task upon themselves as a matter
of duty. Because of the Negroes' "defective comprehension and the
laborious nature of this employment to them"[1] he considered such
reading an inefficient method of religious instruction. He, therefore,
supported the oppressive measures of the South. The other member
of the bar maintained that men could not reflect as Christians and
justify the position that slaves should not b