Page 29

Mr. Helper's later years have been given to the promotion of the Intercontinental Railroad, a scheme by which it is proposed to build a railway from some point in the upper Mississippi basin, through Mexico and Central America, across the highlands on the east of the Andes and across the plains to Buenos Ayres. Later developments would extend this road until it should at last reach the Hudson Bay on the north, and the Straits of Magellan on the south. He removed to St. Louis, Mo., that he might better push this scheme. With characteristic ardor he offered large prizes for the five best essays on the advantage of his scheme, and then published these essays at his own cost. In various ways he has spent on this project $48,000 out of his own pocket. The recent Pan-American Congress took up the matter and secured appropriations by the various nations for the support of an Intercontinental Railway Commission, which has offices in Washington city. Three corps of engineers have been sent to survey the routes. Their work is accomplished, and the reports will soon be published.(1) In the meantime certain roads have been built independently of one another, which may easily be used as sections of the proposed larger system. The evident advantage of such a road makes it certain that as the countries through which it will pass become more thickly settled it will necessarily be built. Mr. Helper's scheme, and the most commendable persistence he has shown in his thirty years of sacrifice and effort in its behalf, has drawn the eyes of business men toward the opportunity, and in the day when it shall be made a real fact the pluck of its promoter will be appreciated by the public. At present Mr. Helper remains a hale and active man of sixty-seven, kind to those who call on him, and ever hopeful for the project which he has on his hands.

BENJAMIN SHERWOOD HEDRICK

Benjamin Sherwood Hedrick, eldest son of John Leonard Hedrick and Elizabeth Sherwood Hedrick, was born in

(1. This fact was recorded in 1896. Later information is not at hand.)

Page 30

Davidson county, near Salisbury, N. C., February 13, 1827. The name indicates that the family was sprung from the German stock, which had a large share in settling this part of the State. John Leonard Hedrick was a farmer on a moderate scale. He was able to give his children the advantages of the neighborhood schools, and to give them enough property to serve for a start in life. The boy, Benjamin, attended the neighborhood schools, and fitted for college under Rev. Jesse Rankin, a Presbyterian minister of Salisbury. There is a story, told and reiterated in the heat of the controversy that afterwards arose, that his father offered him the choice of a college education or property enough to begin life on. For the boy there could be no hesitation in a case like this. He took the opportunity to get an education. In 1847 he entered the university of the State at Chapel Hill, and in 1851 he graduated with the highest distinction. His mind was of a scientific turn, and he made fine progress in chemistry and mathematics. At this time Hon. W. A. Graham, Secretary of the Navy, and a native North Carolinian, asked President Swain, of the university, to recommend a young man to be appointed as clerk in the office of the Nautical Almanac. President Swain recommended Mr. Hedrick, who immediately received the appointment. The duties of this office seem to have been at Cambridge, Mass., and by this means the young graduate was able to take advanced instruction in Harvard College. While there he studied chemistry under the great Agassiz. In 1852 he was married to Miss Mary Ellen Thompson, daughter of William Thompson, of Orange county, North Carolina. In 1854 he was recalled to his Alma Mater to take the Chair of Analytical and Agricultural Chemistry. This position he held until October, 1856, when he was expelled from the faculty for causes connected with his views on slavery.

It is not hard to trace the development of Professor Hedrick's views on slavery. His birth and his early surroundings had put him in sympathy with that large number of

Page 31

small farmers in the western part of the State, who, as we have already seen, were generally opposed to slavery. His boyhood home was near Lock's Bridge, on the Yadkin river, and on the road that led through that part of the State from Virginia to South Carolina. He declared that he had seen on this road as many as two thousand slaves in one day going to the south, and most of them in the hands of speculators. This seems to have made a deep impression on his sensitive nature. In later life he became convinced that it was a very harmful taking away of property which ought to be left in the State to develop it. The people around him had great cause to complain of slavery. They were mostly workers themselves, and felt all the hardships that free labor must suffer in competition with slave labor. Many of them, through this very reason, had been driven from the State. "Of my neighbors, friends and kindred," said Professor Hedrick in his defence, "nearly one-half have left the State since I was old enough to remember. Many is the time I have stood by the loaded emigrant wagon and given the parting hand to those whose faces I was never to look upon again. They were going to seek homes in the free West, knowing, as they did, that free and slave labor could not both exist and prosper in the same community." This statement he supported by showing that in 1850, according to De Bow's census, which ought to be good Southern authority, there were in Indiana alone 33,000 native North Carolinians, while in all the free West there were 58,000. This was enough to make an Abolitionist out of a less responsive nature than Professor Hedrick's. These facts had an early influence on him. His stay in the North only confirmed this conclusion. It was easy enough for a young man of the planter class, used to the luxury of his Southern home, to spend some time in the North without becoming convinced that in general social welfare the North was ahead of the South. It was far easier for a young man of the middle class, used to the hardships and limitations of the

Page 32

free labor of the South, to go to the North and come to an entirely opposite conclusion; and it was not a very remote mental process to conclude, further, that this difference was due to slavery. Young Hedrick was sprung from the middle class of farmers, and his mind naturally went through the process that has been indicated.

All accounts of Professor Hedrick agree that he was a man of singular gentleness of character. In a private letter to the writer, Mr. Hinton R. Helper, who knew Professor Hedrick well, says: "With all his virtues, and he was full of them, modesty, amounting almost to bashfulness, was one of his peculiar characteristics." Such a man was not likely to create strife deliberately. Honest, gentle, intelligent, he was, it is but fair to think, more competent to know the right thing to do in the position in which he was placed than we whom a wide interval of time and interests has removed from him. Let us assume in what shall follow that he acted as properly as one might expect from a man of such a character.

In August, 1856, there was an election of State officers in North Carolina. Professor Hedrick went to the polls in the village of Chapel Hill, in which the university is located, and voted for the Democratic candidates. A bystander asked him if he intended to vote the same ticket in the national election in November following. It is likely that his views on slavery were known, and that this question was asked to make him commit himself in public. He replied that he did not know. He was then asked if he would vote the Whig ticket, and he answered in the negative. Finally he was asked if he would vote for Fremont. To this he answered very frankly that he would so vote if a Republican electoral ticket should be formed in the State. There was no attempt to conceal his intention, and it at once became known among both students and villagers. Mr. Helper, in the letter already quoted, says that time and again Professor Hedrick assured him that he never once sought to

Page 33

disseminate his views among the students or other persons around the place.

This was in August. No active opposition seems to have been made to these views by those closely associated with him who held them. In the North Carolina Standard, Raleigh, N. C., the leading Democratic newspaper of the State, there appeared on September 13, 1856, a short article under the title, "Fremont in the South," the concluding paragraph of which declared: "If there be Fremont men among us, let them be silenced or required to leave. The expression of black Republican opinions in our midst is incompatible with our honor and safety as a people. If at all necessary, we shall refer to this matter again. Let our schools and seminaries of learning be scrutinized; and if black Republicans be found in them, let them be driven out. That man is neither a fit nor a safe instructor of our young men who even inclines to Fremont and black Republicanism." The editor of the Standard, Mr. W. W. Holden, was a man of strong editorial ability. He is said to have boasted that in North Carolina affairs he could kill and make alive. It seems to have been in some such spirit as this that he now turned his guns on the Abolitionist in the university faculty. It was undoubtedly his deliberate purpose to drive Professor Hedrick from his position. Two weeks after the appearance of the article just quoted, the Standard contained a communication, signed "An Alumnus," which brought up the subject in a more direct manner. The writer began by calling attention to the danger of sending Southern youths to Northern colleges, where they would be taught "black Republicanism," and then shifted to the article in the issue of September 13, just mentioned. He goes on to say: "We have been reliably informed that a professor in our State university is an open and avowed supporter of Fremont, and declares his willingness, nay, his desire, to support a black Republican ticket, and a want of a Fremont electoral ticket in North Carolina is the only barrier to this Southern

Page 34

professor from carrying out his patriotic wishes. Is he a fit or safe instructor for our young men?" This professor, says Alumnus, ought to be dismissed from his position, and if the faculty and trustees have no power to dismiss him, the legislature at its approaching session ought to take up the matter. With feelings highly outraged, he asks: "Upon what ground can a Southern instructor, relying for his support upon Southern money, selected to impart healthy instruction to the sons of Southern slave- owners, and indebted for his situation to a Southern State, excuse his support of Fremont with a platform which eschews the fathers of his pupils and the State from whose university he received his station?"

All this was plainly aimed at Professor Hedrick. He consulted his friends as to what he should do. He was advised to say nothing, since any defence he should make would not be believed. One of his colleagues made a visit to Hillsborough about that time, and came back with the information that the articles in the Standard had made a deep impression on the inhabitants of that town. Several of the trustees were said to be denouncing Professor Hedrick as an "Abolitionist," which he was, and as "a stirrer up of the poor against the rich," which he certainly was not. The accused remained silent no longer. He wrote a defence of his position, which was published in the Standard of October 4, 1856. Had he been playing a game with his enemies this would have been a bad play. It gave them an opportunity of bringing a definite charge against him. Had he kept silent, the burden of proof would have remained on them. Moreover, it gave them an opportunity of avoiding the real issue, and of proceeding against him for taking part as a professor in the university in partisan politics; although it must be confessed that it was in the slightest sense partisan to express a preference for a party that was not organized or likely to be organized in the State in which he must vote. On the other hand, Professor Hedrick had his rights. He was a self-directing and a self-accounting citizen, and it

Page 35

was perfectly right for him to express his opinion on a public question about which he was being abused in the public prints. Regardless of the question of expediency, his course was ingenuous and manly. In the light of present knowledge, the South knows that he spoke the truth, and one ought not to criticise a man for speaking the truth, especially if he be an instructor in an institution of learning, which ought at all times to be a leader of truth.

Professor Hedrick's statement was made in a spirit of fairness, and with far less temper than either the editor or "An Alumnus" had shown. Owning readily that he was the man aimed at in the Standard, he avowed with frankness that he preferred Fremont for President, and gave two reasons--(1) because he liked the man, and (2) because Fremont was on the right side of the slavery question. Discussing the latter reason, he branched out into an argument against slavery, perhaps the only anti- slavery argument ever admitted to the columns of the Standard. This feature made five-sixths of his article. He cited the views of Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Madison and Randolph on slavery. The works of these statesmen were much read in the library of the university. He said that in the western part of the State popular sentiment was against slavery, and that a large number of people had gone from there to the West. He made the point that the continual taking away of slaves for the far South cut off a great deal of the labor of the State that ought to be left to develop it. He declared that he had nothing to do with the politics of the students, adding: "They would not have known my own predilections in the present contest had not one of the number asked me which candidate I preferred." Of "An Alumnus" he said: "I shall not attempt to abridge his liberty in the least, but my own opinion I will have, whether he is willing to grant me that right of every freeman or not. I believe I have had quite as good an opportunity as he has to form an opinion on the question now to be settled. And when 'Alumnus' talks of 'driving me out' for sentiments

Page 36

once held by [Washington and Jefferson] I cannot help thinking that he is becoming rather fanatical." He closed by saying: "I do not claim infallibility for my opinions. Wiser and better men than I have been mistaken. But holding, as I do, the doctrines once advocated by Washington and Jefferson, I think I should be met by arguments, and not by denunciation."

Having tormented its victim until he had forced him into a position of public condemnation, the editor of the Standard now proceeded to destroy him in the most systematic manner. In an editorial in the same issue with Professor Hedrick's defence it was declared that it could not be expected of "'An Alumnus' or any other citizen of this State to argue with a black Republican." The editor repeated that a man who "even inclines to Fremont and black Republicanism" is not fit to be an instructor in the university. He added: "This is a matter, however, for the trustees of the university. We take it for granted that Professor Hedrick will be promptly removed."(1) A week later "A Trustee of the University" took up the matter in the same paper, saying: "This sentiment, avowed by one of the professors, will sink the institution, now grown to giant size and still increasing, unless the trustees forthwith expel that traitor to all Southern interests from the seat he now so unworthily fills. He should be ordered away as a foul stain on the escutcheon of the university to show to the country that the institution is a sanctuary from such vile pollution." A correspondent from Norfolk, Va., wrote also in the same strain.

Before these two letters were written the university faculty had considered the case. The defence had appeared on Saturday, October 4. The paper must have reached Chapel Hill not sooner than Saturday afternoon. At noon on Monday following the faculty was called together by

(1. This editorial and Prof. Hedrick's defence were reprinted in the New York Tribune (semi-weekly), Oct. 17, 1856, and in the New York Herald (weekly), Oct. 18, 1856, and possibly elsewhere.)

Page 37

President Swain, all the members being present. In calling up the matter the president said: "In an institution sustained like this, by all denominations and parties, nothing should be permitted to be done calculated to disturb the harmonious intercourse of those who support and those who direct and govern it. And this is well known to have been the policy and practice during a long series of years."(1) The communication of President Swain was referred to a committee consisting of Professors Mitchell, Phillips and Hubbard. These reported as follows:

"Resolved:

"I. That the course pursued by Professor Hedrick, set forth in his publication in the North Carolina Standard of the 4th inst., is not warranted by our usages, and that the political opinions expressed are not those entertained by another member of this body.

"2. That while we feel bound to declare our sentiments freely upon this occasion, we entertain none other than feelings of personal kindness and respect for the subject of them, and sincerely regret the indiscretion into which he seems in this instance to have fallen."

After a brief discussion the resolutions were adopted, Messrs. Mitchell, Phillips, Fetter, Hubbard, Wheat, Phipp, C. Phillips, Brown, Pool, Lucas, Battle and Wetmore voting in the affirmative. Mr. Harrisse voted in the negative, "simply on the ground that the faculty is neither charged with black Republicanism nor likely to be suspected of it." He considered the whole affair as personal to Professor Hedrick. The students of the university expressed their sentiments by assembling on the campus as soon as the Standard containing the defence was received, and by burning the professor in effigy to the tolling of the bell.

On October 11, the executive committee of the board of trustees of the university met in Raleigh, Governor Bragg presiding, the sole purpose being, apparently, to dispose of

(1. North Carolina Standard, Oct. 15, 1856.)

Page 38

this matter. From the minutes of the meeting I take the following:

"The president laid before the committee a political essay by Professor Hedrick, published in the North Carolina Standard of the 4th inst., together with sundry letters and papers relating thereto. Whereupon,

"Resolved, That the executive committee has seen, with great regret, the publication of Professor Hedrick in the Standard of the 4th inst., because it violates the established usage of the university, which forbids any professor to become an agitator in the exciting politics of the day, and is well calculated to injure the prosperity and usefulness of the institution.

"Resolved, That the prompt action of the faculty of the university on the 6th inst. meets with the cordial approbation of this committee.

"Resolved, That in the opinion of the committee, Mr. Hedrick has greatly if not entirely destroyed his power to be of further benefit to the university in the office which he now fills."

These resolutions were passed unanimously.

While the specific words were not used, this was in reality a dismissal. The next issue of the Standard announced, "with much gratification," the removal of Professor Hedrick. Referring to his probable course in the future, the paper further said: "If the Abolitionists should take him up the history of his conduct will follow him, and they will know, as he will feel, that they have received into their bosom a dangerous but congenial and ungrateful thing." This was a bitter thrust at a defeated antagonist. It is worth noting, because it says not one syllable about the offence of writing a political letter. The Standard a week later took up the matter again, and laid down its general doctrine as follows: "We say now, after due consideration, but with no purpose to make any special application of the remark, that no man who is avowedly for John C. Fremont for President ought to be allowed to breathe the air or tread the soil of North Carolina."

Page 39

The cause assigned for the dismissal of Professor Hedrick became afterwards a matter of dispute. The Wilmington Commercial said at the time, in reference to the action of the executive committee: "It was not extra-judicial, as some persons suppose. Some years ago, on account of the introduction of certain political influences into the university, the trustees established a standing rule that neither professors nor scholars should engage in political conflicts. It was under this rule that Mr. Hedrick was dismissed, in consequence of his perseverance in wrong-doing, after being duly admonished that he was violating a law of the institution. The wisdom of this regulation will be quite apparent to every reflecting mind."(1) As to when Professor Hedrick had been "duly admonished," or in what sense he had been guilty of "perseverance in wrong- doing," does not appear from any evidence obtainable. On the contrary, Mr. Helper says that Professor Hedrick said time and time again that he never once tried to convert a student to his views. The above utterance does not seem to have been seen by Professor Hedrick until his return to the State in the following January. Then he sent the Wilmington Commercial a complete statement, which is worthy of extensive quotation. He said, after quoting the charge above mentioned:

"Now all this about the trustees having established any such a rule as the one referred to above is a pure fabrication. No such rule exists, and, of course, I could not violate it or be 'duly admonished' in regard to it. But you say I persevered in wrong-doing after I was duly admonished that I was violating a law of the institution. This is utterly false. I was assailed in two different issues of the Standard. I was charged with being a dangerous member of the community, and the editor called upon the mob to drive me from the State as an outlaw. Under these circumstances, I wrote my defence, declaring that I held no opinions inimical to the peace and welfare of the State, that in opposing

(1. Reprinted in the Hillsboro Recorder, Nov. 12, 1856.)

Page 40

the extension of slavery I was but holding the doctrines of the best and greatest of Southern men that have lived. The publication of this defence is the sum and substance of my offending. The editor of the Standard said, without waiting for the action of the committee, that he took it for granted that I would be removed. Several of the trustees, since reading my defence and the assaults of the Standard, have assured me that I acted just as a high-minded and honorable man should have acted under the circumstances.

"The trustees have never been able to assign any reason for my dismissal, except that Holden and the mobocracy required it, and Holden and the mobocracy must be obeyed or the stars might fall, or some other equally great calamity happen to the State.

"But some will say that I violated a usage of the faculty in defending myself against the attack of the Standard, That is as false as the charge of violating a law of the institution. It is true the faculty have always refrained from taking any prominent part in the politics of the day. But they have always expressed their party preferences as freely as other citizens, who do not make a trade of politics, and when necessary have resorted to the press to give publicity to their opinions on this same vexed slavery question. The same 'usage' exists in regard to the judges. But during the late contest Judge Saunders, before I wrote my 'defence,' addressed a letter to his political friends in Baltimore, which was designed to influence the election, and it was largely circulated by the party presses in the State. No one, however, thought of dismissing Judge Saunders for his breach of 'usage.' And as he was one of the executive committee of the board of trustees, of course he had too much regard for consistency to vote for dismissing me for doing no more than he did himself.

"The following sentence from an editorial in the Standard explains the whole matter. The editor says: 'Our object was to rid the State and the university of an avowed Fremont man, and we have succeeded.' This explains the action

Page 41

of the board, and there is no need to resort to 'rules' which never existed, or to usages which have nothing to do with the matter.

"The act establishing the university says that the board trustees may remove a professor for misbehavior, inability or neglect of duty, and they shall have power to make all such laws and regulations for the government of the university and preservation of order and good morals therein, as are usually made in such seminaries, and as to them may appear necessary; provided, the same are not contrary to the inalienable liberty of a citizen and the laws of a State.(1)

"If it is a misbehavior to defend oneself against the denunciations of a fanatical party paper, then the trustees have dismissed me with a show of reason. The 'inalienable liberty of a citizen' is little worth if it be to cost one the labor of years to claim a voice in the election of a President, and when accused of holding opinions dangerous to the community, not to be permitted to say to the slanderer that the charge is false. My defence has not been reprinted in a single paper in the State; and yet, in order to drive me from my home and kindred, it has everywhere been published that I was an Abolitionist and the mob excited against me. I have asked that my letter be published to speak for itself and me, but in every instance the editors have refused me even that, whilst at the same time many have not hesitated to circulate every paragraph that could work against me.

"The papers which have in any way given currency to the notice that I was dismissed for violating any law of the university or the State, will, I hope, do me the justice to publish this note."

To this plain argument the Commercial of February 5, 1857, the same issue in which the above communication appeared, replied editorially:

(1. See Laws of 1789, Chap. 20, section 8.)

Page 42

"In another column is a communication from Professor Hedrick, containing animadversions on the course of Mr. Holden, of the Standard, and the party to which he belongs. In regard to the 'established rule,' we do not recollect now who was our authority for it, but we well remember that we considered it reliable, certainly as much so as any statement made by Mr. Hedrick can be.

"Mr. Hedrick is hardly entitled to the courtesy we show him, for, by using the term 'Holden and Mobocracy,' he offers an insult to the great and powerful and patriotic party with which we have the honor to act. However, we let that pass, for our readers will have a great opportunity of observing the great advantages of collegiate attainments and station in the charming style in which the professor turns up the 'pure Saxon.' Young man, too, we believe. Quite smart for his age, certainly. Very bad, indeed, that the youth of our university must lose the benefits of his fine examples and specimens of Addisonian purity and style of elegance and diction. Was he somewhat in a passion when he wrote the words false, falsehood, etc? Well! We wonder! His language being so strong, so argumentative, so convincing, we dare say his gesticulations would be magnificent. We trust that the faculty will permit Mr. Hedrick to recite the communication we publish to the scholars, so that they may lose nothing of its beauties, either as regards its sentiments or the lessons that may be derived from action. Action is everything according to the notion of Demosthenes--'action, action, action,' was his motto. Let somebody see Mr. Hedrick act the thing."

Here are two articles, each of which may be left to speak for the merits of the side it advocates. On the one side we have a clear, strong argument, unanswerable, a sense of outrage, a protest against passion; on the other we have an avoidance of argument in the beginning, a ruthless unwillingness to concede a desire for truth to the other side, an appeal to passion, and a supercilious tone of superiority. It was a great misfortune for the South that the

Page 43

defence of slavery should have committed it so decidedly to habits of denunciation and intolerance. It was the embittering of tempers naturally sweet, to which only years can bring back their gentleness.

On October 21, 1856, there was an educational convention in Salisbury, which, it will be remembered, was near Professor Hedrick's boyhood home. Before the recent trouble Professor Hedrick had been appointed a delegate to this convention, and now he decided to attend. One object in going was to learn what was the opinion of the people in that part of the State in regard to his case. In Salisbury he stopped at the house of Rev. Jesse Rankin, who had prepared him for college, and who was then conducting a girls' boarding school in that place. In the evening he went to the Presbyterian Church, where the sessions of the convention were held. He took a seat in the gallery, and seeing his father in another part of the gallery, he went over and sat beside him. This helped to attract attention to his presence. It was soon generally known that he was in the building. A crowd began to collect outside, shouting his name and in various ways evincing an ugly disposition. Their object, said the town paper, was to disgrace him and to force him to leave the place. This made him the object of the gaze of a large part of the audience. Some called him "Fremont" in derision. The children, misunderstanding the allusion, thought he was Fremont, and looked on with wonder and dread. One of them remarked in his hearing that he "was a dreadful little man to be President." Professor Hedrick was embarrassed, and drew his cloak around his face. When the convention adjourned he started out, accompanied by his father and his former teacher. Directly facing the door he saw an effigy of himself, gotten up by some of the young men, and by the side of it a transparency, on which were the words: "Hedrick, leave, or take tar and feathers!" This effigy was burned in the presence of himself and nearly every other member of the convention. The mob gave three groans for the object of their displeasure,

Page 44

who, for his part, accompanied by his father and Mr. Rankin, retired to his lodgings. The passion of the mob was now aroused. They could not forbear to torture as long as their victim was within reach. Between 200 and 300 marched to the boarding school, where they serenaded the hated Abolitionist in true "Calathumpian style," as the Raleigh Standard pronounced it. They shouted, hissed, gave three groans and demanded that he leave town or take an application of "the juice of the pine and the hair of the goose." They even threatened to enter the house and do him personal violence. In the words of the local paper, they "proceeded in a most riotous and reprehensive manner to compel Hedrick to leave town." Finally the mob was quieted by several prominent citizens, who do not seem, before this, to have exerted themselves in the matter. The crowd went to their homes, Professor Hedrick agreeing to leave before daylight. Commenting on this occurrence, the Salisbury Banner said: "We regret this unfortunate occurence as well as every lover of quiet, yet it was a certain demonstration that black Republicans and their infamous principles cannot and will not be tolerated in this goodly land of ours. We admire the spirit, but regret the necessity of the manner in which the condemnation was made."(1)

Early next morning the young man, hunted from the scenes of his boyhood like a criminal, took his way to the house of his brother, who lived near the railroad station of Lexington. To the latter place he at length went with his father to take the train for his home in Chapel Hill. Fearing trouble, the two separated. The precaution was well taken. An excited crowd had gathered, and suspecting that Professor Hedrick might be on board, they searched the cars for him. By

(1. The story as given in The Salisbury Republican Banner, Oct 28, 1856, was reprinted in the Boston Traveller, Nov. 6, 1856. A slightly varying account is that of the Raleigh Standard, Nov. 6, 1856. From these two narratives as well as from facts furnished by Prof. Hedrick's family the above has been reproduced.)

Page 45

getting on the train at the last moment he was able to elude his pursuers, and to reach his home in safety. A few days later he left the State for the North. It was reported at the time that a meeting to express approval of the action of the university authorities was planned in Hillsborough, but that its promoters gave it up for fear that it might be turned against them and made to express approval of Professor Hedrick.

In January, 1857, the fugitive returned to the State. The excitement of the campaign had subsided, and there was no further political gain in persecuting him. He was allowed to come and go in peace. It was at this time that he wrote his statement for the Wilmington Commercial. It was also at this time that the following, which I find among his papers, was written:

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA,
CHAPEL HILL, N. C., February 2, 1857.

The proceedings of the faculty in the foregoing case were dictated by the sense of duty; and subsequent reflection has produced no change of opinion as to the course pursued. We regret most sincerely that a departure from the usages of the institution rendered [necessary] any action on our part.

We repeat now, what we said then, that we entertain for Professor Hedrick none other than feelings of kindness and respect; and we cheerfully add our decided testimony to his high natural abilities and scholarly attainments. We believe that in these respects, especially as a mathematician and analytical chemist, he has few superiors of his age.

(Signed), D. L. SWAIN, Pres.,
E. MITCHELL, Chem. Prof.,
F. M. HUBBARD, Lat. Prof.,
J. T. WHEAT, Logic and Rhet. Prof.

What could have been the occasion for this paper I am unable to learn. It is possible that friends of Professor

Page 46

Hedrick had asked for a modification of the former action of the faculty. It cannot have been meant for a letter of recommendation, for five days later these same professors, with one other, signed such a letter in regular form, in which they spoke most flatteringly of their former colleague as a man and as a scholar.

From North Carolina Professor Hedrick went to New York. Here he was employed as a clerk in the Mayor's office, at the same time lecturing and teaching in the city. In 1861 he gave up this work to become a principal examiner in the United States Patent Office in the Department of Chemistry and Metallurgy, where he remained till his death. From 1872 till 1876 he was also Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology in the University of Georgetown. During the war he relieved many distressed fugitives and prisoners from North Carolina. This was a work in which his gentle nature took great delight. After the war he was an earnest worker for the restoration of civil order in his native State. He died at his residence in Washington, September 2, 1886.

Of his scientific services in the Patent Office this is not the place to speak at length. His long period of service indicates that his work was entirely satisfactory. An associate in the Patent Office, in an article in The American Inventor (Cincinnati, Ohio,) September, 1886, speaks of this part of his career. From this article a few facts will be taken. When he came to take charge of his work, Professor Hedrick saw that but few patents were issued, and the business of the officials seems to have been thought to be to "head off inventors and kill inventions. * * * There was no sort of sympathy with the inventors, and but small desire to aid them in perfecting and obtaining the patents." This he thought wrong. He adopted a more liberal policy in his own department. His associates were shocked. They thought him a radical. But the commissioner, Mr. Holloway, was broad-minded and fair, and Professor Hedrick's "anti-slavery record was so pronounced that no scorn or ill-will

Page 47

had any adverse influence on him." He held his position, and in the course of time the whole office came to espouse his policy in reference to inventions. It was due chiefly to this movement which he set going that the Patent Office began its great development immediately after the war. Many of the patents that he granted were hotly contested, but the courts almost always sustained his judgment. In the course of time he was generally recognized as one of the most efficient, if, indeed, not the most efficient, of all the men in the office in which he served.

DANIEL REAVES GOODLOE.

Daniel Reaves Goodloe was born in Louisburg, N. C., May 28, 1814. His ancestors came from Virginia to North Carolina. His father read medicine, but never practised it. He was a school teacher, although, from his early leaning toward medicine, he continued to be called "Dr. Goodloe." Not far back in the family there was a fortunate combination of English, Welsh, Danish and Huguenot blood. Mr. Goodloe's mother was of a Welsh family named Jones. In neither origin nor association was he connected with the class of large slaveholders. In his youth he attended the "old field" schools of the place, where he acquired the merest rudiments of knowledge. Later on he entered the Louisburg Academy, which was supported by the prominent families of the neighborhood, and had the reputation of being among the best schools of its kind in the State. His progress here was not great, however. When he left the school he could boast of no learning beyond the English branches, except a "smattering of Latin." Later in life he went to Tennessee, and there, at Mt. Pleasant, Maury county, studied mathematics, with good results, under a Harvard graduate named Blake. When still a boy he went to Oxford, N. C., and entered a printing establishment there, his purpose being to learn the printer's trade. This period of his life he recognizes as of great formative value in his

Page 48

mental development. Typesetting taught him, as he himself says, "to analyze sentences and to discard, in my mind, superfluous and inappropriate words. Perhaps the slow process of putting the types together was favorable to this result. At any rate, I have always regarded those years thus spent as not the least advantageous to me in the matter of mental training."

After two years and one-half of apprenticeship, Mr. Goodloe, then just of age, tried a newspaper venture of his own. He began in Oxford, N. C., the publication of The Examiner. The venture was ill-timed, and soon ended in disaster. The editor, encumbered with debt and disgusted with newspapers, went, after some wanderings in Tennessee, back to Louisburg to read law. After a year's study he was licensed to practise in the county courts, and a year later, in January, 1842, secured permission to practise in all State courts. He settled in Louisburg and waited for cases. For nearly two years he waited, but with little success. He had no aptitude for public speaking, and did not succeed in acquiring the facility in argument which is necessary in the general practice of country courts. Mr. Priestly H. Mangum, a brother of Senator Mangum, and a lawyer of prominence, saw this deficiency in the young man, and advised him that it might be overcome by running for some political office. The necessity of defending publicly his position, thought Mr. Mangum, would develop fluency of speech. Franklin county, of which Louisburg is the county seat, was at that time overwhelmingly Whig. Mr. Goodloe was a Whig. His most intimate friends were leading Whigs, and they offered to put him in nomination. "But," says Mr. Goodloe, "I had a thorn in the flesh, which restrained me. I had a profound conviction of the evils of slavery, moral and economical. The agitation had not then reached to fever heat, but it was rising, and it began to be seen that the interest of slavery underlay and touched every other question. I should have been called upon to define my views on the subject, which I could not have done without

Page 49

injury to the Whig cause, to my friends, and to myself." The proferred nomination was accordingly declined. This was a very characteristic action of the man. One of the most prominent traits revealed in his career is his honesty.

After a year of idleness in Louisburg Mr. Goodloe went to Tennessee, hoping to find fortune more favorable there. This was not his first trip to that State. In 1836, just after the failure of The Examiner, he turned to the West. In 1836 he volunteered in Maury county, Tennessee, to go to fight the Indians. The forces were intended to fight the Creeks, in Alabama; but before the command to which he belonged could rendezvous at Fayetteville, Tenn., the Creeks had surrendered. The volunteers then agreed to go to Florida, against the Seminoles. They went, serving six months as mounted volunteers. They had several skirmishes with the Indians. They were at length mustered out of service at New Orleans. For this service Mr. Goodloe now receives a "service pension." On his second trip to Tennessee he found that there was as little of an opening there for a man who was both a printer and a lawyer as he had formerly found for a man who was only a printer. He accordingly decided to go to Washington City. There he arrived, with no money and few friends, January 22, 1844. At length Senator Mangum came to his assistance and secured him employment as assistant editor of a daily paper called The Whig Standard, of which Mr. Nathan Sargeant, a journalist of repute, was the editor-in-chief. The Standard was not a financial success, and in a few weeks Mr. Sargeant withdrew, leaving the entire management to his newly-acquired assistant. During the hotly-waged campaign of 1844 Mr. Goodloe had control of the paper, but he was not able to fix it so deeply in the affections of his party that it would supply more than a campaign want. On the defeat of Mr. Clay it suspended. He then edited the Georgetown Advocate for a short while, and finally took a small school. He at length secured employment of a more permanent nature when he became assistant editor of the

Page 50

National Era, a prominent anti-slavery weekly, published in Washington, and edited by Dr. Gamaliel Bailey. This paper had been founded in 1847 in order to advocate the principles of the Liberty Party. It had, however, says Mr. Goodloe, always remained free from party domination. On account of the illness and subsequent death of Dr. Bailey, Mr. Goodloe became at length the editor-in-chief. He had now reached a position in which he was thoroughly identified with the anti-slavery clause. It is now time that we see how he came to hold such views.

In August, 1831, there occurred in Northampton county, Virginia, the well-known Nat Turner Rebellion. The whole slaveholding South was highly alarmed. In Virginia the occurrence divided public opinion. Many people thought it proved one of the dangers of slavery and advocated the enactment of such laws as would look toward the gradual extinction of slavery. This proposition was most warmly supported in the western counties of Virginia. In January of the succeeding winter the legislature took up the matter and had a long debate on the question of gradual emancipation. The speeches made on this occasion were both exhaustive and able. Slavery was handled with a great deal more freedom than it met with again in the South until it felt the rough force of Grant's army at Appomattox. The ablest men in the State took part in it, and they were mostly on the side of emancipation. Among this number was one worthy of special mention, viz., Mr. Charles J. Faulkner, now of West Virginia. He was then a young man, and spoke ably and convincingly for freedom. The two leading newspapers of Richmond, the Enquirer and the Whig, organs, respectively, of the Democratic and Whig parties, were both for emancipation. Mr. Goodloe was then a journeyman printer in Oxford, N. C. These two papers came regularly to the office as exchanges. They were seized and devoured by the boy. In this way the arguments of the anti- slavery side were deeply impressed on his mind. In fact, the statesmen of Virginia who were opposed to emancipation

Page 51

did not attempt to defend slavery. They merely maintained that emancipation was impracticable. The planters of the eastern part of the State, where slavery was strongest, had a more effective measure than argument to use against the proposition. They saw that the life of slavery was threatened. They affected to believe that the debates would stir up the slaves to further resistance. They called indignation meetings, in which it was declared that the legislative debates were incendiary. The clamor they raised frightened some of the more timid members of the legislature, with the result that further discussion of the matter was dropped, not, however, before the friends of freedom had in one of the ballots come within one vote of winning the fight. "From that time," writes Mr. Goodloe, "dates the intense hostility in all the South to the idea of emancipation in any form, whether immediate or gradual. From that time the legislation of the Southern States took on a harshness never before practised. Negroes were forbidden to learn to read, and to teach them to read was punishable by fine and imprisonment. The statutes of every Southern State bear evidence to this effect."

The Virginia debates were read with interest by many North Carolinians. Some of the State newspapers took the side of emancipation. This was notably true of the Greens-borough Patriot, then edited by William Swaim. Here was a man of strong talents and much ability in writing. He wrote a pamphlet about this time, which was an attack on slavery. Mr. Goodloe says that it would have done credit to any writer. It was reprinted by William Goodell, of New York, but a search in many places has failed to bring it to light.

While at Louisburg, a lawyer without clients, Mr. Goodloe's mind continued to dwell on the moral and economic evils of slavery. It seemed to him an impossiblity that an institution manifestly founded on an injustice to a whole race could be economically wise or generally salutary. Says he: "The objections to slavery pointed out by Northern

Page 52

writers, that free labor was more efficient, and that a free man would do more work than a slave, failed to satisfy me. I was aware that nothing hindered Southern capitalists and Southern planters from employing free labor. But they gave the preference to slave labor as a matter of convenience and of profit. Slaves, where the institution was tolerated, were preferred to any other form of property. Lands in all the South had little market value. They rarely increased in value after the country became settled and occupied. Personal property other than slaves had no salable value, but there was always a market for slaves, either at home in the old States, or in the Southwest." Still it was impossible not to see that the slave States were far behind the free States in general development. Mr. Goodloe thought much over this disparity in the industrial, educational, literary and social progress of the two sections. After much reflection he settled the question to his satisfaction. One day in 1841, while driving from Louisburg to the neighboring town of Franklinton, the conclusion came to him "that capital invested in slaves is unproductive, that it only serves to appropriate the wages of the laborer." This he proceeded to illustrate as follows: Two farmers live on opposite sides of the Ohio river, the one in Ohio, the other in Kentucky. Each has 100 acres of equally fertile land, and an equal capital in tools and stock. But the Kentuckian must own ten slaves to work his land at an investment cost of $10,000. The two have equal amounts of money invested in land, and they raise equal amounts of produce. Now, when it comes to calculating the net returns of the year, the Kentuckian will have to make more money clear in order to receive an income on the capital invested in slaves. Hence it takes more capital to conduct farming operations in Kentucky than in Ohio. "It is true," adds Mr. Goodloe, "that the Kentuckian receives a larger proportion of the crop than the Ohio man; but he receives it as the wages of the ten slaves, who receive nothing. But Kentucky, the community in which the slaveholder resides,

Page 53

is enriched to no greater extent than Ohio, where the farmer must divide profits with the laborer." The same would be true of slaves worked in a factory. "It may be said that he may hire the slaves. No matter; they still are slaves involving an unnecessary investment of capital. The State in which the factory is situated is the loser of actual capital, whether the employer of the slaves, as hired men, loses or not. The South, when the Civil War came on, held near 4,000,000 of slaves, which they valued at an average of nearly $750 each, and the aggregate value was nearly $3,000, 000,000. This abstraction of so vast a sum from active use furnishes another explanation of the dearth of commerce, manufactures and all the conveniences of life from the South. The abolition of slavery destroyed no property. It only changed or transferred titles."

In regard to individual wealth, this view was wrong. If a slave-owner receives wages for slave labor that is a return for slave capital, and to that extent the capital is not unproductive to him. At the same time the value of his slave has another element of gain in the offspring of the slave. In regard to social wealth, Mr. Goodloe's view seems mainly correct, if it be considered from the Northern standpoint. The North said that the slave was a person, a member of society. Consequently his own property was decreased as much as his master's was increased, and the wealth of the community was not affected. The South said, however, that the slave was not a person, not a member of society, but a thing. His property was not decreased by his not owning himself, because he was nothing. His master's property in him was, accordingly, a loss to the property of no member of society. On the contrary, it was a gain to one who was certainly a member of society, and for that reason a gain to society itself. Happily, we are all now agreed that the slave was a person in the eyes of all humane feelings, and that his rights were defeated by his enslavement. The theory, then, that capital invested in slaves is unproductive as social wealth is a good theory. The further

Page 54

view that emancipation destroyed no property needs, however, some modification. Temporarily, emancipation did destroy property. Value depends upon usefulness. One of the conditions of usefulness is efficiency. When one recalls the disorganized condition of labor in the South just after the war, he will see that although the labor forces were outwardly undiminished, they were still not so efficient as they had been, because they lacked sufficient direction. This effect has been temporary. How long it has continued, or will continue, depends upon the negro's acquisition of the habit of working without compulsion, a process in which, it ought to be said, his progress seems satisfactory. An opposing force to this fall in the productiveness of negro labor has been an increased productiveness of white labor under conditions of freedom. What is the exact resultant of all these forces it would be interesting to discover. On the whole, it seems in favor of the new régime.

Mr. Goodloe's views were embodied in a pamphlet, and when he went to Washington he laid it before Mr. John Quincy Adams at his house, nearly opposite the Ebbitt Hotel. Mr. Adams examined it carefully and praised it highly. He asked the author if he proposed to publish it. The answer was that he was unable to do so. Mr. Adams then suggested a newspaper publication, and said that there was a young man named Greeley, who was publishing an anti-slavery Whig newspaper in New York, but that he, Mr. Adams, was not acquainted with him. On consideration he advised that the article be sent to Mr. Charles King, a son of Rufus King, then publishing the New York American. This course was followed, and the article appeared in the American at the end of March, 1844. Two years later the author printed 500 copies of the article in pamphlet form. Later in life, while reading Mill's Political Economy, he was struck with the statement that mortgages are no part of natural wealth. Reasoning by analogy, he thought Mill must have his idea of slavery; but further investigation showed that the arguments used in reference to mortgages

Page 55

had not been applied, as might have been done, in reference to slavery. Mr. Goodloe then sent his pamphlet to the distinguished economist and received a letter in reply, in which Mr. Mill said that Mr. Goodloe was clearly right, and that he would embody the idea advanced in the pamphlet in his next edition of the Political Economy, but he did not publish another edition.

The National Era in its earliest days drew its patronage from the whole country, wherever there was anti-slavery sentiment. It was one of the few papers that were advocating that cause. With Mr. Lincoln's election a large number of papers appeared as supporters of anti-slavery principles. Against these papers the Era could not compete. Local Abolitionists turned to support their home enterprises, and the older journal, after having fought the battle through to victory, died as a result of the success of the cause it had advocated. Left out of employment by this collapse, Mr. Goodloe became Washington correspondent of the New York Times, then strongly Republican. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed Senator Wilson's bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. A sum of money not exceeding $1,000,000 was appropriated to pay for the liberated slaves, and it was provided that the average price should not be more than $300 each. To carry out this law a committee consisting of Messrs. D. R. Goodloe, chairman; Horatio King and J. M. Broadhead, were appointed to value the slaves and to order payment for the same. The committee sat for nearly nine months, took evidence, heard arguments, examined the slaves themselves with the aid of Mr. B. M. Campbell, an expert slave dealer from Baltimore, and awarded such sums under the law as they thought just. In this way 3000 slaves were liberated, at a cost to the government of $900, 000, in round numbers.(1)

(1. See Ingle: The Negro in the District of Columbia, Johns Hopkins University Studies, 11th Series, pp. 105-8. Some further details have been supplied from Mr. Goodloe's own statement.)

Page 56

For a year or two after this Mr. Goodloe was engaged in editorial work on the Washington Chronicle. In September, 1865, he was appointed United States Marshal in North Carolina. This position he held until the inauguration of President Grant, when he was removed for party reasons. He remained in North Carolina for some years, but finally returned to Washington city, where he occupied himself at first with the compilation of a book, which was later published under the title of "The Birth of the Republic." He afterwards wrote a history of the reconstruction period, but being unable to print it himself, he sold the manuscript to a prominent politician. That gentleman incorporated it in a book of memoirs, which he was about to issue to cover his experience as a politician, and he used Mr. Goodloe's work without giving him credit. Having purchased the work, he doubtless felt relieved from any obligation to acknowledge its connection with another. Later on Mr. Goodloe compiled a synopsis of the debates of Congress from the earliest times to the present day, but the work has not been published. He remained in Washington writing for the newspapers and investigating many features of our national history. In the winter of 1894-5 he published in the Raleigh (N. C.) News and Observer a series of articles on the reconstruction frauds in North Carolina, which is undoubtedly the best thing written on the subject. In the spring of 1896 he returned to Raleigh, N. C., where he still resides.(1)

ELI WASHINGTON CARUTHERS.

Few people, perhaps, who know Dr. Caruthers as an historian realize that he wrote a book on slavery. He was, as most of those who know of him will understand, pastor of Presbyterian churches around Greensboro, N. C., for over forty years. He was a man of conviction and was known to be opposed to slavery; but he made no display of his

(1. The facts for the above sketch are derived, unless otherwise stated, from data furnished by Mr. Goodloe himself.)

Page 57

views. Finally, one Sunday morning in July, 1861, at his church at Alamance, he prayed that the young men of his congregation who were in the army "might be blessed of the Lord and returned in safety though engaged in a bad cause." The next day the officials of the church informed him that they needed him no longer. It was probably after this that he wrote his work on "American Slavery and the Immediate Duty of Slaveholders." This book was not published, and until recently few knew of its existence. In February, 1898, it was discovered by Dr. Dred Peacock and placed in the Ethel Carr Peacock Library at Greensboro Female College.

Two prefaces were written; one when the manuscript was prepared, and one in 1865, when the author made some changes in it. In the second preface he says:

"The following work would have been published years ago, but for the last fifteen years its publication or circulation would not have been tolerated in any one of the Southern States. It was written at the request of some valued friends who had expressed the wish to see my views in a more permanent form than the incidental or transient utterances of conversation, without any design of ever giving it to the public in its present form."

Although slavery had then been abolished, it was decided to publish, because the people were thought to be in a better mood to understand and to do justice to anti-slavery arguments, and because "we have the authority of the Bible for holding up the calamitous events to the wicked actors in them as warnings." In the first preface is this statement: "There are some hard things in it [the book], and if there were not it could do no good; for an evil of such an extent, enormity, and long standing cannot be demolished or removed by a little smooth talk. The whole truth must be told. . . . . The language is not abusive, and was certainly not intended to be so; for neither my disposition nor my principles allow me to employ harsh and vituperative language."