XV. THE COLONY OF MASSACHUSETTS,--CONTINUED…

XV. THE COLONY OF MASSACHUSETTS,--CONTINUED

1633-1775.

THE ERA OF PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION AGAINST SLAVERY.--BOSTON INSTRUCTS HER REPRESENTATIVES TO VOTE AGAINST THE SLAVE-TRADE.--PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY GOV. DUMMER AGAINST THE NEGROES, APRIL 13, 1723.--PERSECUTION OF THE NEGROES.--"SUING FOR LIBERTY."--LETTER OF SAMUEL ADAMS TO JOHN PICKERING, JUN., ON BEHALF OF NEGRO MEMORIALISTS--A BILL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE PASSES.--IS VETOED BY GOV. GAGE AND FAILS TO BECOME A LAW.

The time to urge legislation on the slavery question had come. Cultivated at the first as a private enterprise, then fostered as a patriarchal institution, slavery had grown to such gigantic proportions as to be regarded as an unwieldy evil, and subversive of the political stability of the colony. Men winked at the "day of its small things," and it grew. Little legislation was required to regulate it, and it began to take root in the social and political life of the people. The necessities for legislation in favor of slavery increased. Every year witnessed the enactment of laws more severe, until they appeared as scars upon the body of the laws of the colony. To erase these scars was the duty of the hour.

It was now 1755. More than a half-century of agitation and discussion had prepared the people for definite action. Manumission and petition were the first methods against slavery. On the 10th of March, 1755, the town of Salem instructed their representative, Timothy Pickering, to petition the General Court against the importation of slaves.[380] The town of Worcester, in June, 1765, instructed their representative to "use his influence to obtain a law to put an end to that unchristian and impolitic practice of making slaves of the human species, and that he give his vote for none to serve in His Majesty's Council, who will use their influence against such a law."[381] The people of Boston, in the month of May, 1766, instructed their representatives as follows:--

"And for the total abolishing of slavery among us, that you move for a law to prohibit the importation and the purchasing of slaves for the future."[382]

And in the following year, 1767, on the 16th of March, the question was put as to whether the town should adhere to its previous instructions in favor of the suppression of the slave-trade, and passed in the affirmative. Nearly all the towns, especially those along the coast, those accessible by mails and newspapers, had recorded their vote, in some shape or other, against slavery. The pressure for legislation on the subject was great. The country members of the Legislature were almost a unit in favor of the passage of a bill prohibiting the further importation of slaves. The opposition came from the larger towns, but the opposers were awed by the determined bearing of the enemies of the slave-trade. The scholarship, wealth, and piety of the colony were steadily ranging to the side of humanity.

On the 13th of March, 1767, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives "to prevent the unwarrantable and unlawful Practice or Custom of inslaving Mankind in this Province, and the importation of slaves into the same."[383] It was read the first time, when a dilatory motion was offered that the bill lie over to the next session, which was decided in the negative. An amendment was offered to the bill, limiting it "to a certain time," which was carried; and the bill made a special order for a second reading on the following day. It was accordingly read on the 14th, when a motion was made to defer it for a third reading to the next "May session." The friends of the bill voted down this dilatory motion, and had the bill made the special order of the following Monday,--it now being Saturday. On Sunday there must have been considerable lobbying done, as can be seen by the vote taken on Monday. After it was read, and the debate was concluded, it was "Ordered that the Matter subside, and that Capt. Sheaffe, Col. Richmond, and Col. Bourne, be a Committee to bring in a Bill for laying a Duty of Impost on slaves importing into this Province."[384] This was a compromise, that, as will be seen subsequently, impaired the chances of positive and wholesome legislation against slavery. The original bill dealt a double blow: it struck at the slave-trade in the Province, and levelled the institution already in existence. But some secret influences were set in operation, that are forever hidden from the searching eye of history; and the friends of liberty were bullied or cheated. There was no need of a bill imposing an impost tax on slaves imported, for such a law had been in existence for more than a half-century. If the tax were not heavy enough, it could have been increased by an amendment of a dozen lines. On the 17th the substitute was brought in by the special committee appointed by the Speaker the previous day. The rules requiring bills to be read on three several days were suspended, the bill ordered to a first and second reading, and then made the special order for eleven o'clock on the next day, Wednesday, the 18th. The motion to lie on the table until the "next May" was defeated. An amendment was then offered to limit the life of the bill to one year, which was carried, and the bill recommitted. On the afternoon of the same day it was read a third time, and placed on its passage with the amendment. It passed, was ordered engrossed, and was "sent up by Col. Bowers, Col. Gerrish, Col. Leonard, Capt. Thayer, and Col. Richmond." On the 19th of March it was read a first time in the council. On the 20th it was read a second time, and passed to be engrossed "as taken into a new draft." When it reached the House for concurrence, in the afternoon of the same day, it was "Read and unanimously non-concurred, and the House adhere to their own vote, sent up for concurrence."[385]

Massachusetts has gloried much and long in this Act to prohibit "the Custom of enslaving mankind;" but her silver-tongued orators and profound statesmen have never possessed the courage to tell the plain truth about its complete failure. From the first it was harassed by dilatory motions and amendments directed to its life; and the substitute, imposing an impost tax on imported slaves for one year, showed plainly that the friends of the original bill had been driven from their high ground. It was like applying for the position of a major-general, and then accepting the place of a corporal. It was as though they had asked for a fish, and accepted a serpent instead. It seriously lamed the cause of emancipation. It filled the slaves with gloom, and their friends with apprehension. On the other hand, those who profited by barter in flesh and blood laughed secretly to themselves at the abortive attempt of the anti-slavery friends to call a halt on the trade. They took courage. For ten weary years the voices lifted for the freedom of the slave were few, faint, and far between. The bill itself has been lost. What its subject-matter was, is left to uncertain and unsatisfactory conjecture. All we know is from the title just quoted. But it was, nevertheless, the only direct measure offered in the Provincial Legislature against slavery during the entire colonial period, and came nearest to passage of any. But "a miss is as good as a mile!"

It was now the spring season of 1771. Ten years had flown, and no one in all the Province of Massachusetts had had the courage to attempt legislation friendly to the slave. The scenes of the preceding year were fresh in the minds of the inhabitants of Boston. The blood of the martyrs to liberty was crying from the ground. The "red coats" of the British exasperated the people. The mailed hand, the remorseless steel finger, of English military power was at the throat of the rights of the people. The colony was gasping for independent political life. A terrible struggle for liberty was imminent. The colonists were about to contend for all that men hold dear,--their wives, their children, their homes, and their country. But while they were panting for an untrammelled existence, to plant a free nation on the shores of North America, they were robbing Africa every year of her sable children, and condemning them to a bondage more cruel than political subjugation. This glaring inconsistency imparted to reflecting persons a new impulse toward anti-slavery legislation.

In the spring of 1771 the subject of suppressing the slave-trade was again introduced into the Legislature. On the 12th of April a bill "To prevent the Importation of slaves from Africa" was introduced, and read the first time, and, upon the question "When shall the bill be read again?" was ordered to a second reading on the day following at ten o'clock. Accordingly, on the 13th, the bill was read a second time, and postponed till the following Tuesday morning. On the 16th it was recommitted. On the 19th of the same month a "Bill to prevent the Importation of Negro slaves into this Province" was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading "to-morrow at eleven o'clock." On the following day it was read a second time, and made the special order for three o'clock on the following Monday. On the 22d, Monday, it was read a third time, and placed upon its passage and engrossed. On the 24th it passed the House. When it reached the Council James Otis proposed an amendment, and a motion prevailed that the bill lie upon the table. But it was taken from the table, and the amendment of Otis was concurred in by the House. It passed the Council in the latter part of April, but failed to receive the signature of the governor, on the ground that he was "not authorized by Parliament."[386] The same reason for refusing his signature was set up by Gen. Gage. Thus the bill failed. Gov. Hutchinson gave his reasons to Lord Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies. The governor thought himself restrained by "instructions" to colonial governors "from assenting to any laws of a new and unusual nature." In addition to the foregoing, his Excellency doubted the lawfulness of the legislation to which the "scruple upon the minds of the people in many parts of the province" would lead them; and that he had suggested the propriety of transmitting the bill to England to learn "his Majesty's pleasure" thereabouts. Upon these reasons Dr. Moore comments as follows:--

"These are interesting and important suggestions. It is apparent that at this time there was no special instruction to the royal governor of Massachusetts, forbidding his approval of acts against the slave-trade. Hutchinson evidently doubted the genuineness of the 'chief motive' which was alleged to be the inspiration of the bill, the 'meerly moral' scruple against slavery; but his reasonings furnish a striking illustration of the changes which were going on in public opinion, and the gradual softening of the harsher features of slavery under their influence. The non-importation agreement throughout the Colonies, by which America was trying to thwart the commercial selfishness of her rapacious Mother, had rendered the provincial viceroys peculiarly sensitive to the slightest manifestation of a disposition to approach the sacred precincts of those prerogatives by which King and Parliament assumed to bind their distant dependencies: and the 'spirit of non-importation' which Massachusetts had imperfectly learned from New York was equally offensive to them, whether it interfered with their cherished 'trade with Africa,' or their favorite monopolies elsewhere."

Discouraged by the failure of the House and General Court to pass measures hostile to the slave-trade, the people in the outlying towns began to instruct their representatives, in unmistakable language, to urge the enactment of repressive legislation on this subject. At a town meeting in Salem on the 18th of May, 1773,[387] the representatives were instructed to prevent, by appropriate legislation, the further importation of slaves into the colony, as "repugnant to the natural rights of mankind, and highly prejudicial to the Province." On the very next day, May 19, 1773, at a similar meeting in the town of Leicester, the people gave among other instructions to Thomas Denny, their representative, the following on the question of slavery:--

"And, as we have the highest regard for (so as even to revere the name of) liberty, we cannot behold but with the greatest abhorrence any of our fellow-creatures in a state of slavery.

"Therefore we strictly enjoin you to use your utmost influence that a stop maybe put to the slave-trade by the inhabitants of this Province; which, we apprehend, may be effected by one of these two ways: either by laying a heavy duty on every negro imported or brought from Africa or elsewhere into this Province; or by making a law, that every negro brought or imported as aforesaid should be a free man or woman as soon as they come within the jurisdiction of it; and that every negro child that shall be born in said government after the enacting such law should be free at the same age that the children of white people are; and, from the time of their birth till they are capable of earning their living, to be maintained by the town in which they are born, or at the expense of the Province, as shall appear most reasonable.

"Thus, by enacting such a law, in process of time will the blacks become free; or, if the Honorable House of Representatives shall think of a more eligible method, we shall be heartily glad of it. But whether you can justly take away or free a negro from his master, who fairly purchased him, and (although illegally; for such is the purchase of any person against their consent unless it be for a capital offence) which the custom of this country has justified him in, we shall not determine; but hope that unerring Wisdom will direct you in this and all your other important undertakings."[388]

Medford instructed the representative to "use his utmost influence to have a final period put to that most cruel, inhuman and unchristian practice, the slave-trade." At a town meeting the people of Sandwich voted, on the 18th of May, 1773, "that our representative is instructed to endeavor to have an Act passed by the Court, to prevent the importation of slaves into this country, and that all children that shall be born of such Africans as are now slaves among us, shall, after such Act, be free at 21 yrs. of age."[389]

This completes the list of towns that gave instructions to their representatives, as far as the record goes. But there doubtless were others; as the towns were close together, and as the "spirit of liberty was rife in the land."

The Negroes did not endure the yoke without complaint. Having waited long and patiently for the dawn of freedom in the colony in vain, a spirit of unrest seized them. They grew sullen and desperate. The local government started, like a sick man, at every imaginary sound, and charged all disorders to the Negroes. If a fire broke out, the "Negroes did it,"--in fact, the Negroes, who were not one-sixth of the population, were continually committing depreciations against the whites! On the 13th of April, 1723, Lieut.-Gov. Dummer issued a proclamation against the Negroes, which contained the following preamble:--

"Whereas, within some short time past, many fires have broke out within the town of Boston, and divers buildings have thereby been consumed: which fires have been designedly and industriously kindled by some villanous and desperate negroes, or other dissolute people, as appears by the confession of some of them (who have been examined by the authority), and many concurring circumstances; and it being vehemently suspected that they have entered into a combination to burn and destroy the town, I have therefore thought fit, with the advice of his Majesty's council, to issue forth this proclamation," etc.

On Sunday, the 18th of April, 1723, the Rev. Joseph Sewall preached a sermon suggested "by the late fires y't have broke out in Boston, supposed to be purposely set by y'e negroes." The town was greatly exercised. Everybody regarded the Negroes with distrust. Special measures were demanded to insure the safety of the town. The selectmen of Boston passed "nineteen articles" for the regulation of the Negroes. The watch of the town was increased, and the military called out at the sound of every fire-alarm "to keep the slaves from breaking out"! In August, 1730, a Negro was charged with burning a house in Malden; which threw the entire community into a panic. In 1755 two Negro slaves were put to death for poisoning their master, John Codman of Charlestown. One was hanged, and the other burned to death. In 1766 all slaves who showed any disposition to be free were "transported and exchanged for small negroes."[390] In 1768 Capt. John Willson, of the Fifty-ninth Regiment, was accused of exciting the slaves against their masters; assuring them that the soldiers had come to procure their freedom, and that, "with their assistance, they should be able to drive the Liberty Boys to the Devil." The following letter from Mrs. John Adams to her husband, dated at the Boston Garrison, 22d September, 1774, gives a fair idea of the condition of the public pulse, and her pronounced views against slavery.

"There has been in town a conspiracy of the negroes. At present it is kept pretty private, and was discovered by one who endeavored to dissuade them from it. He being threatened with his life, applied to Justice Quincy for protection. They conducted in this way, got an Irishman to draw up a petition to the Governor [Gage], telling him they would fight for him provided he would arm them, and engage to liberate them if he conquered. And it is said that he attended so much to it, as to consult Percy upon it, and one Lieutenant Small has been very busy and active. There is but little said, and what steps they will take in consequence of it I know not. I wish most sincerely there was not a slave in the province; it always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have. You know my mind upon this subject."[391]

The Negroes of Massachusetts were not mere passive observers of the benevolent conduct of their white friends. They were actively interested in the agitation going on in their behalf. Here, as in no other colony, the Negroes showed themselves equal to the emergencies that arose, and capable of appreciating the opportunities to strike for their own rights. The Negroes in the colony at length struck a blow for their liberty. And it was not the wild, indiscriminate blow of Turner, nor the military measure of Gabriel; not the remorseless logic of bludgeon and torch,--but the sober, sensible efforts of men and women who believed their condition abnormal, and slavery prejudicial to the largest growth of the human intellect. The eloquence of Otis, the impassioned appeals of Sewall, and the zeal of Eliot had rallied the languishing energies of the Negroes, and charged their hearts with the divine passion for liberty. They had learned to spell out the letters of freedom, and the meaning of the word had quite ravished their fainting souls. They had heard that the royal charter declared all the colonists British subjects; they had devoured the arguments of their white friends, and were now prepared to act on their own behalf. The slaves of Greece and Rome, it is true, petitioned the authorities for a relaxation of the severe laws that crushed their manhood; but they were captives from other nations, noted for government and a knowledge of the science of warfare. But it was left to the Negroes of Massachusetts to force their way into counts created only for white men, and win their cause!

On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1766, John Adams makes the following record in his diary:--

"5. Wednesday. Attended Court; heard the trial of an action of trespass, brought by a mulatto woman, for damages, for restraining her of her liberty. This is called suing for liberty; the first action that ever I knew of the sort, though I have heard there have been many."[392]

So as early as 1766 Mr. Adams records a case of "suing for liberty;" and though it was the first he had known of, nevertheless, he had "heard there have been many." How many of these cases were in Massachusetts it cannot be said with certainty, but there were "many." The case to which Mr. Adams makes reference was no doubt that of Jenny Slew vs. John Whipple, jun., cited by Dr. Moore. It being the earliest case mentioned anywhere in the records of the colony, great interest attaches to it.

"JENNY SLEW of Ipswich in the County of Essex, spinster, Pltff., agst. JOHN WHIPPLE, Jun., of said Ipswich Gentleman, Deft., in a Plea of Trespass that the said John on the 29th day of January, A.D. 1762, at Ipswich aforesaid with force and arms took her the said Jenny, held and kept her in servitude as a slave in his service, and has restrained her of her liberty from that time to the fifth of March last without any lawful right & authority so to do and did her other injuries against the peace & to the damage of said Jenny Slew as she saith the sum of twenty-five pounds. This action was first brought at last March Court at Ipswich when & where the parties appeared & the case was continued by order of Court to the then next term when and where the Pltff appeared & the said John Whipple Jun, came by Edmund Trowbridge, Esq. his attorney & defended when he said that there is no such person in nature as Jenny Slew of Ipswich aforesaid, Spinster, & this the said John was ready to verify wherefore the writ should be abated & he prayed judgment accordingly which plea was overruled by the Court and afterwards the said John by the said Edmund made a motion to the Court & praying that another person might endorse the writ & be subject to cost if any should finally be for the Court but the Court rejected the motion and then Deft. saving his plea in abatement aforesaid said that he is not guilty as the plaintiff contends, & thereof put himself on the Country, & then the cause was continued to this term, and now the Pltff. reserving to herself the liberty of joining issue on the Deft's plea aforesaid in the appeal says that the defendant's plea aforesaid is an insufficient answer to the Plaintiff's declaration aforesaid and by law she is not held to reply thereto & she is ready to verify wherefore for want of a sufficient answer to the Plaintiff's declaration aforesaid she prays judgment for her damages & costs & the defendant consenting to the waiving of the demurrer on the appeal said his plea aforesaid is good & because the Pltff refuses to reply thereto He prays judgment for his cost. It is considered by the Court that the defendant's plea in chief aforesaid is good & that the said John Whipple recover of the said Jenny Slew costs tax at the Pltff appealed to the next Superior Court of Judicature to be holden for this County & entered into recognizance with sureties as the law directs for prosecuting her appeal to effect." Records of the Inferior Court of C.C.P., Vol.--, (Sept. 1760 to July 1766), page 502.

"JENNY SLEW of Ipswich, in the County of Essex, Spinster, Appellant, versus JOHN WHIPPLE, Jr. of said Ipswich, Gentleman Appellee from the judgment of an Inferior Court of Common Pleas held at Newburyport within and for the County of Essex on the last Tuesday of September 1765 when and where the appellant was plaint., and the appellee was defendant in a plea of trespass, for that the said John upon the 29th day of January, A.D. 1762, at Ipswich aforesaid with force and arms took her the said Jenny held & kept her in servitude as a slave in his service & has restrained her of her liberty from that time to the fifth of March 1765 without any lawful right or authority so to do & did other injuries against the Peace & to the damage of the said Jenny Slew, as she saith, the sum of twenty-five pounds, at which Inferior Court, judgment was rendered upon the demurrer then that the said John Whipple recover against the said Jenny Slew costs. This appeal was brought forward at the Superior Court of Judicature &c., holden at Salem, within & for the County of Essex on the first Tuesday of last November, from whence it was continued to the last term of this Court for this County by consent & so from thence unto this Court, and now both parties appeared & the demurrer aforesaid being waived by consent & issue joined upon the plea tendered at said Inferior Court & on file. The case after full hearing was committed to a jury sworn according to law to try the same who returned their verdict therein upon oath, that is to say, they find for appellant reversion of the former judgment four pounds money damage & costs. It's therefore considered by the Court, that the former judgment be reversed & that the said Slew recover against the said Whipple the sum of four pounds lawful money of this Province damage & costs taxed 9_l._ 9_s._ 6_d._

"Exon. issued 4 Dec. 1766." Records of the Superior Court of Judicature (vol. 1766-7), page 175.

The next of the "freedom cases," in chronological order, was the case of Newport vs. Billing, and was doubtless the one in which John Adams was engaged in the latter part of September, 1768.[393] It was begun in the Inferior Court, where the decision was against the slave, Amos Newport. The plaintiff took an appeal to the highest court in the colony; and that court gave as its solemn opinion, "that the said Amos [Newport] was not a freeman, as he alleged, but the proper slave of the said Joseph [Billing]."[394] It should not be lost sight of, that not only the Fundamental laws of 1641, but the highest court in Massachusetts, held, as late as 1768, that there was property in man!

The case of James vs. Lechmere is the one "which has been for more than half a century the grand cheval de bataille of the champions of the historic fame of Massachusetts."[395] Richard Lechmere resided in Cambridge, and held to servitude for life a Negro named "James." On the 2d of May, 1769, this slave began an action in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas. The action was "in trespass for assault and battery, and imprisoning and holding the plaintiff in servitude from April 11, 1758, to the date of the writ." The judgment of the Inferior Court was adverse to the slave; but on the 31st of October, 1769, the Superior Court of Suffolk had the case settled by compromise. A long line of worthies in Massachusetts have pointed with pride to this decision as the legal destruction of slavery in that State. But it "is shown by the records and files of Court to have been brought up from the Inferior Court by sham demurrer, and, after one or two continuances, settled by the parties."[396] The truth of history demands that the facts be given to the world. It will not be pleasant for the people of Massachusetts to have this delusion torn from their affectionate embrace. It was but a mere historical chimera, that ought not to have survived a single day; and, strangely enough, it has existed until the present time among many intelligent people. This case has been cited for the last hundred years as having settled the question of bond servitude in Massachusetts, when the fact is, there was no decision in this instance! And the claim that Richard Lechmere's slave James was adjudged free "upon the same grounds, substantially, as those upon which Lord Mansfield discharged Sommersett," is absurd and baseless.[397] For on the 27th of April, 1785 (thirteen years after the famous decision), Lord Mansfield himself said, in reference to the Sommersett case, "that his decision went no farther than that the master cannot by force compel the slave to go out of the kingdom." Thirty-five years of suffering and degradation remained for the Africans after the decision of Lord Mansfield. His lordship's decision was rendered on the 22d of June, 1772; and in 1807, thirty-five years afterwards, the British government abolished the slave-trade. And then, after twenty-seven years more of reflection, slavery was abolished in English possessions. So, sixty-two years after Lord Mansfield's decision, England emancipated her slaves! It took only two generations for the people to get rid of slavery under the British flag. How true, then, that "facts are stranger than fiction"!

In 1770 John Swain of Nantucket brought suit against Elisha Folger, captain of the vessel "Friendship," for allowing a Mr. Roth to receive on board his ship a Negro boy named "Boston," and for the recovery of the slave. This was a jury-trial in the Court of Common Pleas. The jury brought in a verdict in favor of the slave, and he was "manumitted by the magistrates." John Swain took an appeal from the decision of the Nantucket Court to the Supreme Court of Boston, but never prosecuted it.[398] In 1770, in Hanover, Plymouth County, a Negro asked his master to grant him his freedom as his right. The master refused; and the Negro, with assistance of counsel, succeeded in obtaining his liberty.[399]

"In October of 1773, an action was brought against Richard Greenleaf, of Newburyport, by Caesar [Hendrick,] a colored man, whom he claimed as his slave, for holding him in bondage. He laid the damages at fifty pounds. The counsel for the plaintiff, in whose favor the jury brought in their verdict and awarded him eighteen pounds damages and costs, was John Lowell, esquire, afterward judge Lowell. This case excited much interest, as it was the first, if not the only one of the kind, that ever occurred in the county."[400]

This case is mentioned in full by Mr. Dane in his "Abridgment and Digest of American Law," vol. ii. p. 426.

In the Inferior Court of Common Pleas, in the county of Essex, July term in 1774, a Negro slave of one Caleb Dodge of Beverly brought an action against his master for restraining his liberty. The jury gave a verdict in favor of the Negro, on the ground that there was "no law of the Province to hold a man to serve for life."[401] This is the only decision we have been able to find based upon such a reason. The jury may have reached this conclusion from a knowledge of the provisions of the charter of the colony; or they may have found a verdict in accordance with the charge of the court. The following significant language in the charter of the colony could not have escaped the court:--

"That all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, which go to and inhabit within our said province and territory, and every of their children which shall happen to be born there, or on the seas in going thither, or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within the dominions of us, our heirs and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, as if they and every of them were born within our realm of England."

The Rev. Dr. Belknap, speaking of these cases which John Adams speaks of as "suing for liberty," gives an idea of the line of argument used by the Negroes:--

"On the part of the blacks it was pleaded, that the royal charter expressly declared all persons born or residing in the province, to be as free as the King's subjects in Great Britain; that by the laws of England, no man could be deprived of his liberty but by the judgment of his peers; that the laws of the province respecting an evil existing, and attempting to mitigate or regulate it, did not authorize it; and, on some occasions, the plea was, that though the slavery of the parents be admitted, yet no disability of that kind could descend to children."[402]

The argument pursued by the masters was,--

"The pleas on the part of the masters were, that the negroes were purchased in open market, and bills of sale were produced in evidence; that the laws of the province recognized slavery as existing in it, by declaring that no person should manumit his slave without giving bond for his maintenance."[403]

It is well that posterity should know the motives that inspired judges and juries to grant these Negroes their prayer for liberty.

"In 1773, etc., some slaves did recover against their masters; but these cases are no evidence that there could not be slaves in the Province, for sometimes masters permitted their slaves to recover, to get clear of maintaining them as paupers when old and infirm; the effect, as then generally understood, of a judgment against the master on this point of slavery; hence, a very feeble defence was often made by the masters, especially when sued by the old or infirm slaves, as the masters could not even manumit their slaves, without indemnifying their towns against their maintenance, as town paupers."

And Chief-Justice Parsons, in the case of Winchendon vs. Hatfield, in error, says,--

"Several negroes, born in this country of imported slaves demanded their freedom of their masters by suit at law, and obtained it by a judgment of court. The defence of the master was feebly made, for such was the temper of the times, that a restless discontented slave was worth little; and when his freedom was obtained in a course of legal proceedings, the master was not holden for his future support, if he became poor."

Thus did the slaves of Massachusetts fill their mouths with arguments, and go before the courts. The majority of them, aged and infirm, were allowed to gain their cause in order that their masters might be relieved from supporting their old age. The more intelligent, and, consequently, the more determined ones, were allowed to have their freedom from prudential reasons, more keenly felt than frankly expressed by their masters. In some instances, however, noble, high-minded Christians, on the bench and on juries, were led to their conclusions by broad ideas of justice and humanity. But the spirit of the age was cold and materialistic. With but a very few exceptions, the most selfish and constrained motives conspired to loose the chains of the bondmen in the colony.

The slaves were not slow to see that the colonists were in a frame of mind to be persuaded on the question of emancipation. Their feelings were at white heat in anticipation of the Revolutionary struggle, and the slaves thought it time to strike out a few sparks of sympathy.

On the 25th of June, 1773, a petition was presented to the House of Representatives, and read before that body during the afternoon session. It was the petition "of Felix Holbrook, and others, Negroes, praying that they may be liberated from a state of Bondage, and made Freemen of this Community, and that this Court would give and grant to them some part of the unimproved Lands belonging to the Province, for a settlement, or relieve them in such other Way as shall seem good and wise upon the Whole." After its reading, a motion prevailed to refer it to a select committee for consideration, with leave to report at any time. It was therefore "ordered, that Mr. Hancock, Mr. Greenleaf, Mr. Adams, Capt. Dix, Mr. Pain, Capt. Heath, and Mr. Pickering consider this Petition, and report what may be proper to be done."[404] It was a remarkably strong committee. There were the patriotic Hancock, the scholarly Greenleaf, the philosophic Pickering, and the eloquent Samuel Adams. It was natural that the Negro petitioners should have expected something. Three days after the committee was appointed, on the 28th of June, they recommended "that the further Consideration of the Petition be referred till next session." The report was adopted, and the petition laid over until the "next session."[405]

But the slaves did not lose heart. They found encouragement among a few noble spirits, and so were ready to urge the Legislature to a consideration of their petition at the next session, in the winter of 1774. The following letter shows that they were anxious and earnest.

"SAMUEL ADAMS TO JOHN PICKERING, JR.

"BOSTON, Jan'y. 8, 1774.

"Sir,--

As the General Assembly will undoubtedly meet on the 26th of this month, the Negroes whose petition lies on file, and is referred for consideration, are very solicitous for the Event of it, and having been informed that you intended to consider it at your leisure Hours in the Recess of the Court, they earnestly wish you would compleat a Plan for their Relief. And in the meantime, if it be not too much Trouble, they ask it as a favor that you would by a Letter enable me to communicate to them the general outlines of your Design. I am, with sincere regard," etc.[406]

It is rather remarkable, that on the afternoon of the first day of the session,--Jan. 26, 1774,--the "Petition of a number of Negro Men, which was entered on the Journal of the 25th of June last, and referred for Consideration to this session," was "read again, together with a Memorial of the same Petitioners, and Ordered, that Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Adams, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pain, and Mr. Greenleaf consider the same, and report."[407] The public feeling on the matter was aroused. It was considered as important as, if not more important than, any measure before the Legislature.

The committee were out until March, considering what was best to do about the petition. On the 2d of March, 1774, they reported to the House "a Bill to prevent the Importation of Negroes and others as slaves into this Province," when it was read a first time. On the 3d of March it was read a second time in the morning session; in the afternoon session, read a third time, and passed to be engrossed. It was then sent up to the Council to be concurred in, by Col. Gerrish, Col. Thayer, Col. Bowers, Mr. Pickering and Col. Bacon.[408] On the next day the bill "passed in Council with Amendments,"[409] and was returned to the House. On the 5th of March the House agreed to concur in Council amendments, and on the 7th of March passed the bill as amended. On the day following it was placed upon its passage in the Council, and carried. It was then sent down to the governor to receive his signature, in order to become the law of the Province. That official's approval was withheld, and the reason given was, "the secretary said (on returning the approved bills) that his Excellency had not had time to consider the other Bills that had been laid before him."[410]

It is quite fortunate that the bill was preserved;[411] for it is now, in the certain light of a better civilization, a document of great historic value.

"ANNO REGNI REGIS GEORGII TERTII &c. DECIMO QUARTO.

"AN ACT to prevent the importation of Negroes or other Persons as Slaves into this Province, and the purchasing them within the same, and for making provision for relief of the children of such as are already subjected to slavery Negroes Mulattoes & Indians born within this Province.

"WHEREAS the Importation of Persons as Slaves into this Province has been found detrimental to the interest of his Majesty's subjects therein; And it being apprehended that the abolition thereof will be beneficial to the Province--

"Be it therefore Enacted by the Governor Council and House of Representatives that whoever shall after the Tenth Day of April next import or bring into this Province by Land or Water any Negro or other Person or Persons whether Male or Female as a Slave or Slaves shall for each and every such Person so imported or brought into this Province forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred Pounds to be recovered by presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury and when so recovered to be to his Majesty for the use of this Government or by action of debt in any of his Majesty's Courts of Record and in case of such recovery the one moiety thereof to be to his majesty for the use of this Government the other moiety to the Person or Persons who shall sue for the same.

"And be it further Enacted that from and after the Tenth Day of April next any Person or Persons that shall purchase any Negro or other Person or Persons as a Slave or Slaves imported or brought into this Province as aforesaid shall forfeit and pay for every Negro or other Person so purchased Fifty Pounds to be recovered and disposed of in the same way and manner as before directed.

"And be it further Enacted that every Person, concerned in importing or bringing into this Province, or purchasing any such Negro or other Person or Persons as aforesaid within the same; who shall be unable, or refuse, to pay the Penalties or forfeitures ordered by this Act; shall for every such offence suffer Twelve months' imprisonment without Bail or mainprise.

"Provided allways that nothing in this act contained shall extend to subject to the Penalties aforesaid the Masters, Mariners, Owners or Freighters of any such Vessel or Vessels, as before the said Tenth Day of April next shall have sailed from any Port or Ports in this Province, for any Port or Ports not within this Government, for importing or bringing into this Province any Negro or other Person or Persons as Slaves who in the prosecution of the same voyage may be imported or brought into the same. Provided he shall not offer them or any of them for sale.

"Provided also that this act shall not be construed to extend to any such Person or Persons, occasionally hereafter coming to reside within this Province, or passing thro' the same, who may bring such Negro or other Person or Persons as necessary servants into this Province provided that the stay or residence of such Person or Persons shall not exceed Twelve months or that such Person or Persons within said time send such Negro or other Person or Persons out of this Province there to be and remain, and also that during said Residence such Negro or other Person or Persons shall not be sold or alienated within the same.

"[Transcriber's Note: Inverted A appears here.] And be it further Enacted and declared that nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to extend for retaining or holding in perpetual servitude any Negro or other Person or Persons now inslaved within this Province but that every such Negro or other Person or Persons shall be intituled to all the Benefits such Negro or other Person or Persons might by Law have been intituled to, in case this act had not been made.

"In the House of Representatives March 2, 1774. Read a first & second Time. March 3, 1774. Read a third Time & passed to be engrossed. Sent up for concurrence.

T. CUSHING, Spkr.

"In Council March 3, 1774. Read a first time. 4. Read a second Time and passed in Concurrence to be Engrossed with the Amendment at [Transcriber's Note: Inverted A appears here.] dele the whole Clause. Sent down for concurrence.

THOS. FLUCKER, Secry.

"In the House of Representatives March 4, 1774. Read and concurred.

T. CUSHING, Spkr."

Like all other measures for the suppression of the slave-trade, this bill failed to become a law. If Massachusetts desired to free herself from this twofold cross of woe,--even if her great jurists could trace the law that justified the abolition of the curse, in the pages of the royal charter,--were not the British governors of the Province but conserving the corporation interests of the home government and the members of the Royal African Company? By the Treaty of Utrecht, England had agreed to furnish the Spanish West Indies with Negroes for the space of thirty years. She had aided all her colonies to establish slavery, and had sent her navies to guard the vessels that robbed Africa of five hundred thousand souls annually.[412] This was the cruel work of England. For all her sacrifices in the war, the millions of treasure she had spent, the blood of her children so prodigally shed, with the glories of Blenheim, of Ramillies, of Oudenarde and Malplaquet, England found her consolation and reward in seizing and enjoying, as the lion's share of results of the grand alliance against the Bourbons, the exclusive right for thirty years of selling African slaves to the Spanish West Indies and the coast of America![413] Why should Gov. Hutchinson sign a bill that was intended to choke the channel of a commerce in human souls that was so near the heart of the British throne?

Gov. Hutchinson was gone, and Gen. Gage was now governor. He convened the General Court at Salem, in June, 1774. On the 10th of June the same bill that Gov. Hutchinson had refused to sign was introduced, with a few immaterial changes, and pushed to a third reading, and engrossed the same day. It was called up on the 16th of June, and passed. It was sent up to the Council, where it was read a third time, and concurred in. But the next day the General Court was dissolved! And over the grave of this, the last attempt at legislation to suppress the slave-trade in Massachusetts, was written: "Not to have been consented to by the governor"!

These repeated efforts at anti-slavery legislation were strategic and politic. The gentlemen who hurried those bills through the House and Council, almost regardless of rules, knew that the royal governors would never affix their signatures to them. But the colonists, having put themselves on record, could appeal to the considerate judgment of the impatient Negroes; while the refusal of the royal governors to give the bills the force of law did much to drive the Negroes to the standard of the colonists. In the long night of darkness that was drawing its sable curtains about the colonial government, the loyalty of the Negroes was the lonely but certain star that threw its peerless light upon the pathway of the child of England so soon to be forced to lift its parricidal hand against its rapacious and cruel mother.

FOOTNOTES:

[380] Felt, vol. ii. p. 416.Return to passage

[381] Newspaper Literature, vol. i. p. 31.Return to passage

[382] Lyman's Report, quoted by Dr. Moore.Return to passage

[383] House Journal, p. 387.Return to passage

[384] Ibid.Return to passage

[385] House Journals; see, also, Gen. Court Records, May, 1763, to May, 1767, p. 485.Return to passage

[386] Slavery in Mass., pp. 131, 132.Return to passage

[387] Felt, vol. ii. pp. 416, 417.Return to passage

[388] Hist. of Leicester, pp. 442, 443.Return to passage

[389] Freeman's Hist. of Cape Cod, vol. ii. pp. 114, 115.Return to passage

[390] Boston Gazette, Aug. 17, 1761.Return to passage

[391] Letters of Mrs. Adams, p. 20.Return to passage

[392] Adams's Works, vol. ii. p. 200.Return to passage

[393] Adams's Works, vol. ii, p. 213.Return to passage

[394] Records, 1768, fol., p. 284.Return to passage

[395] This is the case referred to by the late Charles Sumner in his famous speech in answer to Senator Butler of South Carolina; see also Slavery in Mass., p. 115, 116; Washburn's Judicial Hist. of Mass., p. 202; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 1863-64, p. 322.Return to passage

[396] Records, 1769, fol. p. 196. Gray in Quincy's Reports, p. 30, note, quoted by Dr. Moore.Return to passage

[397] Slavery in Mass., pp. 115, 116, note.Return to passage

[398] Lyman's Report, 1822.Return to passage

[399] Slavery in Mass., p. 118.Return to passage

[400] Hist. of Newbury, p. 339.Return to passage

[401] The Watchman's Alarm, p. 28, note; also Slavery in Mass., p. 119.Return to passage

[402] Mass. Hist Soc. Coll., vol. iv. 1st Series, pp. 202, 203.Return to passage

[403] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 564.Return to passage

[404] House Journal, p. 85, quoted by Dr. Moore.Return to passage

[405] House Journal, p. 94.Return to passage

[406] Slavery in Mass., p. 136.Return to passage

[407] House Journal, p. 104.Return to passage

[408] House Journal p. 224.Return to passage

[409] Ibid., p. 226.Return to passage

[410] House Journal, Gen Court Records, xxx. pp. 248, 264; also, Slavery in Mass, p. 137.Return to passage

[411] Mass. Archives, Domestic Relations, 1643-1774, vol. ix. p. 457.Return to passage

[412] Ethiope, p. 12.Return to passage

[413] Bolingbroke, pp. 346-348.Return to passage

XVI. THE COLONY OF MARYLAND

1634-1775.

MARYLAND UNDER THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA UNTIL 1630.--FIRST LEGISLATION ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION IN 1637-38.--SLAVERY ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE IN 1663.--THE DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY.--AN ACT PASSED ENCOURAGING THE IMPORTATION OF NEGROES AND WHITE SERVANTS IN 1671.--AN ACT LAYING AN IMPOST ON NEGROES AND WHITE SERVANTS IMPORTED INTO THE COLONY.--DUTIES IMPOSED ON RUM AND WINE.--TREATMENT OF SLAVES AND PAPISTS.--CONVICTS IMPORTED INTO THE COLONY.--AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICT-TRADE.--SPIRITED REPLIES.--THE LAWS OF 1723, 1729, 1752.--RIGHTS OF SLAVES.--NEGRO POPULATION IN 1728.--INCREASE OF SLAVERY IN 1756.--NO EFFORTS MADE TO PREVENT THE EVILS OF SLAVERY.--THE REVOLUTION NEARING.--NEW LIFE FOR THE NEGROES.

Up to the 20th of June, 1630, the territory that at present constitutes the State of Maryland was included within the limits of the colony of Virginia. During that period the laws of Virginia obtained throughout the entire territory.

In 1637[414] the first assembly of the colony of Maryland agreed upon a number of bills, but they never became laws. The list is left, but nothing more. The nearest and earliest attempt at legislation on the slavery question to be found is a bill that was introduced "for punishment of ill servants." During the earlier years of the existence of slavery in Virginia, the term "servant" was applied to Negroes as well as to white persons. The legal distinction between slaves and servants was, "servants for a term of years,"--white persons; and "servants for life,"--Negroes. In the first place, there can be no doubt but what Negro slaves were a part of the population of this colony from its organization;[415] and, in the second place, the above-mentioned bill of 1637 for the "punishment of ill servants" was intended, doubtless, to apply to Negro servants, or slaves. So few were they in number, that they were seldom referred to as "slaves." They were "servants;" and that appellation dropped out only when the growth of slavery as an institution, and the necessity of specific legal distinction, made the Negro the only person that was suited to the condition of absolute property.

In 1638 there was a list of bills that reached a second reading, but never passed. There was one bill "for the liberties of the people," that declared "all Christian inhabitants (slaves only excepted) to have and enjoy all such rights, liberties, immunities, privileges and free customs, within this province, as any natural born subject of England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the realm of England, by force or virtue of the common law or statute law of England, saving in such cases as the same are or may be altered or changed by the laws and ordinances of this province."[416] There is but one mention made of "slaves" in the above Act, but in none of the other Acts of 1638. There are certain features of the Act worthy of special consideration. The reader should keep the facts before him, that by the laws of England no Christian could be held in slavery; that in the Provincial governments the laws were made to conform with those of the home government; that, in specifying the rights of the colonists, the Provincial assemblies limited the immunities and privileges conferred by the Magna Charta upon British subjects, to Christians; that Negroes were considered heathen, and, therefore, denied the blessings of the Church and State; that even where Negro slaves were baptized, it was held by the courts in the colonies, and was the law-opinion of the solicitor-general of Great Britain, that they were not ipso facto free;[417] and that, where Negroes were free, they had no rights in the Church or State. So, while this law of 1638 did not say that Negroes should be slaves, in designating those who were to enjoy the rights of freemen, it excludes the Negro, and thereby fixes his condition as a slave by implication. If he were not named as a freeman, it was the intention of the law-makers that he should remain a bondman,--the exception to an established rule of law.[418]

In subsequent Acts reference was made to "servants," "fugitives," "runaways," etc.; but the first statute in this colony establishing slavery was passed in 1663. It was "An Act concerning negroes and other slaves." It enacts section one:--

"All negroes or other slaves within the province, and all negroes and other slaves to be hereafter imported into the province, shall serve durante vita; and all children born of any negro or other slave, shall be slaves as their fathers were for the term of their lives."

Section two:--

"And forasmuch as divers freeborn English women, forgetful of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation, do intermarry with negro slaves, by which also divers suits may arise, touching the issue of such women, and a great damage doth befall the master of such negroes, for preservation whereof for deterring such free-born women from such shameful matches, be it enacted, &c.: That whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarry with any slave, from and after the last day of the present assembly, shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married, shall be slaves as their fathers were."

Section three:--

"And be it further enacted, that all the issues of English, or other free-born women, that have already married negroes, shall serve the master of their parents, till they be thirty years of age and no longer."[419]

Section one is the most positive and sweeping statute we have ever seen on slavery. It fixes the term of servitude for the longest time man can claim,--the period of his earthly existence,--and dooms the children to a service from which they were to find discharge only in death. Section two was called into being on account of the intermarriage of white women with slaves. Many of these women had been indentured as servants to pay their passage to this country, some had been sent as convicts, while still others had been apprenticed for a term of years. Some of them, however, were very worthy persons. No little confusion attended the fixing of the legal status of the issue of such marriages; and it was to deter Englishwomen from such alliances, and to determine the status of the children before the courts, that this section was passed. Section three was clearly an ex post facto law: but the public sentiment of the colony was reflected in it; and it stood, and was re-enacted in 1676.

Like Virginia, the colony of Maryland found the soil rich, and the cultivation of tobacco a profitable enterprise. The country was new, and the physical obstructions in the way of civilization numerous and formidable. Of course all could not pursue the one path that led to agriculture. Mechanic and trade folk were in great demand. Laborers were scarce, and the few that could be obtained commanded high wages. The Negro slave's labor could be made as cheap as his master's conscience and heart were small. Cheaper labor became the cry on every hand, and the Negro was the desire of nearly all white men in the colony.[420] In 1671 the Legislature passed "An Act encouraging the importation of negroes and slaves into" the colony, which was followed by another and similar Act in 1692. Two motives inspired the colony to build up the slave-trade; viz., to have more laborers, and to get something for nothing. And, as soon as Maryland was known to be a good market for slaves, the traffic increased with wonderful rapidity. Slaves soon became the bone and sinew of the working-force of the colony. They were used to till the fields, to fell the forests, to assist mechanics, and to handle light crafts along the water-courses. They were to be found in all homes of opulence and refinement; and, unfortunately, their presence in such large numbers did much to lower honorable labor in the estimation of the whites, and to enervate women in the best white society. While the colonists persuaded themselves that slavery was an institution indispensable to the colony, its evil effects soon became apparent. It were impossible to engage the colony in the slave-trade, and escape the bad results of such an inhuman enterprise. It made men cruel and avaricious.

It was the motion of individuals to have legislative encouragement tendered the venders of human flesh and blood; but the time came when the government of the colony saw that an impost tax upon the slaves imported into the colony would not impair the trade, while it would aid the government very materially. In 1696 "An Act laying an imposition on negroes, slaves and while persons imported" into the colony was passed. It is plain from the reading of the caption of the above bill, that it was intended to reach three classes of persons; viz., Negro servants, Negro slaves, and white servants. The word "imported" means such persons as could not pay their passage, and were therefore indentured to the master of the vessel. When they arrived, their time was hired out, if they were free, for a term of years, at so much per year;[421] but if they were slaves the buyer had to pay all claims against this species of property before he could acquire a fee simple in the slave. Some historians have too frequently misinterpreted the motive and aim of the colonial Legislatures in imposing an impost tax upon Negroes and other servants imported into their midst. The fact that the law applied to white persons does not aid in an interpretation that would credit the makers of the act with feelings of humanity. A people who could buy and sell wives did not hesitate to see in the indentured white servants property that ought to be taxed. Why not? These white servants represented so many dollars invested, or so many years of labor in prospect! So all persons imported into the colony of Maryland, "Negroes, slaves, and white persons," were taxed as any other marketable article. A swift and remorseless civilization against the stolid forces of nature made men indiscriminate and cruel in their impulses to obtain. Public sentiment had been formulated into law: the law contemplated "servants and slaves" as chattel property; and the political economists of the Province saw in this species of property rich gains for the government. It was condition, circumstances, that made the servant or slave; but at length it was nationality, color.

When, on the threshold of the eighteenth century, "white indentured" servants were rapidly ceasing to exist under color or sanction of law, religious bigotry and ecclesiastical intolerance joined hands with the supporters of Negro slavery in a crusade[422] against the Irish Catholics. In 1704 the Legislature passed "An Act imposing three pence per gallon on rum and wine, brandy and spirits, and twenty shillings per poll for negroes, for raising a supply to defray the public charge of this province, and twenty shillings, per poll, on Irish servants, to prevent the importing too great a number of Irish papist into this province." Although this Act was intended to remain on the statute-books only three years, its life was prolonged by a supplemental Act, and it disgraced the colony for twenty-one years. As in New York, so here, the government regarded the slave and Papist with feelings of hatred and fear. The former was only suited to a condition of perpetual bondage, the latter to be ostracized and driven out from before the face of the exclusive Protestants of that period. Both were cruelly treated; one on account of his face, the other on account of his faith.

"Unfortunately for the professors of the Catholic religion, by the force of circumstances which it is not necessary to detail, their religious persuasions became identified, in the public mind, with opposition to the principles of the revolution. Their political disfranchisement was the consequence. Charles Calvert, the deposed proprietary, shared the common fate of his Catholic brethren. Sustained and protected by the crown in the enjoyment of his mere private rights, the general jealousy of Catholic power denied him the government of the province."[423]

A knowledge of the antecedents of the master-class will aid the reader to a more accurate conception of the character of the institution of slavery in the colony of Maryland.

It is not very pleasing for the student of history at this time to remember that the British colonies in North America received into their early life the worst poison of European society,--the criminal element. From the first the practice of transporting convicts into the colonies obtained. And, during the reign of George I., statutes were passed "authorizing transportation as a commutation punishment for clergyable felonies." These convicts were transported by private shippers, and then sold into the colony; and thus it became a gainful enterprise. From 1700 until 1760 this nefarious and pestiferous traffic greatly increased. At length it became, as already indicated, the subject of a special impost tax. Three or four hundred convicts were imported into the colony annually, and the people began to complain.[424] In "The Maryland Gazette" of the 30th of July, 1767, a writer attempted to show that the convict element was not to be despised, but was rather a desirable addition to the Province. He says,--

"I suppose that for these last thirty years, communibus annis, there have been at least 600 convicts per year imported into this province: and these have probably gone into 400 families."

After answering some objections to their importation because of the contagious diseases likely to be communicated by them, he further remarks,--

"This makes at least 400 to one, that they do no injury to the country in the way complained of: and the people's continuing to buy and receive them so constantly, shows plainly the general sense of the country about the matter; notwithstanding a few gentlemen seem so angry that convicts are imported here at all, and would, if they could, by spreading this terror, prevent the people's buying them. I confess I am one, says he, who think a young country cannot be settled, cultivated, and improved, without people of some sort: and that it is much better for the country to receive convicts than slaves. The wicked and bad amongst them, that come into this province, mostly run away to the northward; mix with their people, and pass for honest men: whilst those more innocent, and who came for very small offences, serve their times out here, behave well, and become useful people."

This attempt to justify the convict trade elicited two able and spirited replies over the signatures of "Philanthropos" and "C.D." appearing in "Green's Gazette" of 20th of August, 1767, in which the writer of the first article is handled "with the gloves off."

"His remarks [says Philanthropos] remind me of the observation of a great philosopher, who alleges that there is a certain race of men of so selfish a cast, that they would even set a neighbour's house on fire, for the convenience of roasting an egg at the blaze. That these are not the reveries of fanciful speculatists, the author now under consideration is in a great measure a proof; for who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should interfere with his little schemes of profit? And who but such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any sort eligible for peopling a young country?"

In another part of his reply he remarks,--

"In confining the indignation because of their importation to a few, and representing that the general sense of the people is in favor of this vile importation, he is guilty of the most shameful misrepresentation and the grossest calumny upon the whole province. What opinion must our mother country, and our sister colonies, entertain of our virtue, when they see it confidently asserted in the Maryland Gazette, that we are fond of peopling our country with the most abandoned profligates in the universe? Is this the way to purge ourselves from that false and bitter reproach, so commonly thrown upon us, that we are the descendants of convicts? As far as it has lain in my way to be acquainted with the general sentiments of the people upon this subject, I solemnly declare, that the most discerning and judicious amongst them esteem it the greatest grievance imposed upon us by our mother country."

The writer felt that a young country could not be settled "without people of some sort," and that it was better to secure "convicts than slaves." Upon what grounds precisely this defender of buying convict labor based his conclusion that he would rather have "convicts than slaves" is not known. It could not have been that he believed the convicts of England more industrious or skilful than Negro slaves? Or, had he theoretical objections to slavery as a permanent institution? Perhaps the writer had himself graduated from the criminal class! But there were gentlemen who differed with him, and couched their objections to the convict system of importation in very vigorous English. On the 20th of August, 1767, two articles appeared in "Greene's Gazette." Says one of these writers,--

"For who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should interfere with his little schemes of profit? And who but such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any sort eligible for peopling a young country?"

There can be no doubt but that many of the convicts thus imported, having served out their time, in a brief season became slave-drivers and slave-owners. With hearts reduced to flinty hardness in the fires of unrestrained passions, the convict element, as it became absorbed in the great free white population of the Province,[425] created a most positive sentiment in favor of a cruel code for the government of the Negro slave. There were two motives that inspired the ex-convict to cruelty to the Negro: to divert attention from himself, and to persuade himself, in his doubting mind, that the Negro was inferior to him by nature. It was, no doubt, a great undertaking; but the findings of such a court must have been comforting to an anxious conscience! The result can be judged. Maryland made a slave-code, which, for cruelty and general inhumanity, has no equal in the South.[426] The Maryland laws of 1715 contained, in chapter forty-four, an act with one hundred and thirty-five sections relating to Negro slaves. A most rigorous pass-system was established. By section six, no Negro or other servant was allowed to leave the county without a pass under the seal of the county in which their master resided; for which pass the slave or other servant was compelled to pay ten pounds of tobacco, or one shilling in money. If such persons were apprehended, a justice of the peace could impose such fines and inflict such punishment as were fixed by the law applying to runaways. By the Act of 1723, chapter fifteen, under the caption of "An Act to prevent the tumultuous meeting and other irregularities of negroes and other slaves," the severity of the laws was increased tenfold. According to section four, a Negro or other slave who had the temerity to strike a white person, was to have his ears "cropt on order of a Justice." Section six denies slaves the right of possession of property: they could not own cattle. Section seven gave authority to any white man to kill a Negro who resisted an attempt to arrest him; and by a supplemental Act of 1751, chapter fourteen, the owner of a slave thus killed was to be paid out of the public treasury. In 1729 an Act was passed providing, that upon the conviction of certain crimes, Negroes and other slaves shall be not only hanged, but the body should be quartered, and exposed to public view. When slaves grew old and infirm in the service of their masters, and the latter were inspired by a desire to compliment the faithfulness of their servants by emancipation, the law came in and forbade manumission by the "last will or testament," or the making free in any way of Negro slaves. It was a temporary Act, passed in 1752, void of every element of humanity; and yet it stood as the law of the colony for twenty long years.

In 1748 the Negro population of Maryland was thirty-six thousand, and still rapidly increasing.

"By a 'very accurate census,' taken this year, this was found to be the number of white inhabitants in Maryland:--

+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+ | | FREE. | SERVANTS. | CONVICTS. | TOTAL. | +---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+ |Men | 24,058 | 3,576 | 1,507 | 29,141 | |Women | 23,521 | 1,824 | 386 | 25,731 | |Boys | 26,637 | 1,048 | 67 | 27,752 | |Girls | 24,141 | 422 | 21 | 24,584 | |---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+ | | 98,357 | 6,870 | 1,981 | 107,208 | +---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+

"By the same account the total number of mulattoes in Maryland amounted to 3,592; and the total number of Negroes, to 42,764. Pres. Stiles' MS. It was reckoned (say the authors of Univ. Hist.), that above 2,000 Negro slaves were annually imported into Maryland."[427]

In 1756 the blacks had increased to 46,225, and in 1761 to 49,675. There was nothing in the laws to prohibit the instruction of Negroes, and yet no one dared to brave public sentiment on that point. The churches gave no attention or care to the slaves. During the first half or three-quarters of a century there was an indiscriminate mingling and marrying among the Negroes and white servants; and, although this was forbidden by rigid statutes, it went on to a considerable extent. The half-breed, or Mulatto, population increased;[428] and so did the number of free Negroes. The contact of these two elements--of slaves and convicts--was neither prudent nor healthy. The Negroes suffered from the touch of the moral contagion of this effete matter driven out of European society. Courted as rather agreeable companions by the convicts at first, the Negro slaves were at length treated worse by the ex-convicts than by the most intelligent and opulent slave-dealers in all the Province. And with no rights in the courts, incompetent to hold an office of any kind, the free Negroes were in almost as disagreeable a situation as the slaves.

From the founding of the colony of Maryland in 1632 down to the Revolutionary War, there is no record left us that any effort was ever made to cure the most glaring evils of slavery. For the Negro this was one long, starless night of oppression and outrage. No siren's voice whispered to him of a distant future, propitious and gracious to hearts almost insensible to a throb of joy, to minds unconscious of the feeblest rays of light. Being absolute property, it was the right of the master to say how much food, or what quantity of clothing, his slave should have. There were no rules by which a slave could claim the privilege of ceasing from labor at the close of the day. No, the master had the same right to work his slaves after nightfall as to drive his horse morning, noon, and night. Poor clothes, rough and scanty diet, wretched quarters, overworked, neglected in body and mind, the Negroes of Maryland had a sore lot.

The Revolution was nearing. Public attention was largely occupied with the Stamp Act and preparations for hostilities. The Negro was left to toil on; and, while at this time there was no legislation sought for slavery, there was nothing done that could be considered hostile to the institution. The Negroes hailed the mutterings of the distant thunders of revolution as the precursor of a new era to them. It did furnish an opportunity for them in Maryland to prove themselves patriots and brave soldiers. And how far their influence went to mollify public sentiment concerning them, will be considered in its appropriate place. Suffice it now to say, that cruel and hurtful, unjust and immoral, as the institution of slavery was, it had not robbed the Negro of a lofty conception of the fundamental principles that inspired white men to resist the arrogance of England; nor did it impair his enthusiasm in the cause that gave birth to a new republic amid the shock of embattled arms.

FOOTNOTES:

[414] Dr. Abiel Holmes, in his American Annals, vol. ii. p. 5, says, "Maryland now contained about thirty-six thousand persons, of white men from sixteen years of age and upwards, and negroes male, and female from sixteen to sixty." I infer from this statement that slavery was in existence in Maryland in 1634; and I cannot find any thing in history to lead me to doubt but that slavery was born with the colony.Return to passage

[415] Cabinet Cyclopaedia, vol. i. p. 61.Return to passage

[416] See Bacon's Laws, also Holmes's Annals, vol. i. p. 250.Return to passage

[417] The following appeared in the Plantation Laws, printed in London in 1705: "Where any negro or slave, being in servitude or bondage, is or shall become Christian, and receive the sacrament of baptism, the same shall not nor ought not to be deemed, adjudged or construed to be a manumission or freeing of any such negro or slave, or his or her issue, from their servitude or bondage, but that notwithstanding they shall at all times hereafter be and remain in servitude and bondage as they were before baptism, any opinion, matter or thing to the contrary notwithstanding."Return to passage

[418] McSherry's Hist. of Maryland, p. 86.Return to passage

[419] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 249.Return to passage

[420] McMahon's Hist. of Maryland, vol. i. p. 274.Return to passage

[421] The following form was used for a long time in Maryland for binding out a servant.Return to passage

This Indenture made the ---- day of ---- in the ---- yeere of our Soveraigne Lord King Charles,&c betweene ---- of the one party, and ---- on the other party, Witnesseth, that the said ---- doth hereby covenant promise, and grant, to and with the said ---- his Executors and Assignes, to serve him from the day of the date hereof, untill his first and next arrivall in Maryland: and after for and during the tearme of ---- yeeres, in such service and imployment, as the said ---- or his assignee shall there imploy him, according to the custome of the Countrey in the like kind. In consideration whereof, the said ---- doth promise and grant, to and with the said ---- to pay for his passing, and to find him with Meat, Drinke, Apparell and Lodging, with other necessaries during the said terme; and at the end of the said terme, to give him one whole yeeres provision of Corne, and fifty acres of Land, according to the order of the countrey. In witnesse whereof, the said ---- hath hereunto put his hand and seate, the day and yeere above written.

Sealed and delivered in the presence of ----

--Relation of the state of Maryland, pp. 62, 63.

[422] Modern Traveller, vol. i. pp. 122, 123.Return to passage

[423] McMahon's Maryland, vol. i. p. 278.Return to passage

[424] 1st Pitkin's United States, p. 133.Return to passage

[425] McMahone says of this convict element: "The pride of this age revolts at the idea of going back to such as these, for the roots of a genealogical tree; and they, whose delight it would be, to trace their blood through many generations of stupid, sluggish, imbecile ancestors, with no claim to merit but the name they carry down, will even submit to be called 'novi homines,' if a convict stand in the line of ancestry."Return to passage

[426] With perhaps the single exception of South Carolina, of which the reader will learn more farther on.Return to passage

[427] American Annals.Return to passage

[428] Dr. Holmes says, "The total number of mulattoes in Maryland amounted to 3,592," in 1755.Return to passage

XVII. THE COLONY OF DELAWARE

1636-1775.

THE TERRITORY OF DELAWARE SETTLED IN PART BY SWEDES AND DANES, ANTERIOR TO THE YEAR 1678.--THE DUKE OF YORK TRANSFERS THE TERRITORY OF DELAWARE TO WILLIAM PENN.--PENN GRANTS THE COLONY THE PRIVILEGE OF SEPARATE GOVERNMENT.--SLAVERY INTRODUCED ON THE DELAWARE AS EARLY AS 1636.--COMPLAINT AGAINST PETER ALRICKS FOR USING OXEN AND NEGROES BELONGING TO THE COMPANY.--THE FIRST LEGISLATION ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION IN THE COLONY.--AN ENACTMENT OF A LAW FOR THE BETTER REGULATION OF SERVANTS.--AN ACT RESTRAINING MANUMISSION.

Anterior to the year 1638, the territory now occupied by the State of Delaware was settled in part by Swedes and Danes. It has been recorded of them that they early declared that it was "not lawful to buy and keep slaves."[429] But the Dutch claimed the territory. When New Netherlands was ceded to the Duke of York, Delaware was occupied by his representatives. On the 24th of August, 1682, the Duke transferred that territory to William Penn.[430] But in 1703 Penn surrendered the old form of government, and gave the Delaware counties the privilege of a separate administration under the Charter of Privileges. Delaware inaugurated a legislature, but remained under the Council and Governor of Pennsylvania. But slavery made its appearance on the Delaware as early as 1636.[431]

"At this early period there appears to have been slavery on the Delaware. As one Coinclisse was 'condemned, on the 3d of February, to serve the company with the blacks on South River for wounding a soldier at Fort Amsterdam. He was also to pay a fine to the fiscal, and damages to the wounded soldier.' On the 22d, a witness testifying in the case of Governor Van Twiller, (the governor of New Neitherlands before Kieft,) who was charged with neglect and mismanagement of the company's affairs, said that 'he had in his custody for Van Twiller, at Fort Hope and Nassau, twenty-four to thirty goats, and that three negroes bought by the director in 1636, were since employed in his private service.' Thus it will be seen that slavery was introduced on the Delaware as early as 1636, though probably not in this State, as the Dutch at that time had no settlement here."[432]

And on the 15th of September, 1657, complaint was made that Peter Alricks had "used the company's oxen and negroes;" thus showing that there were quite a number of Negroes in the colony at the time mentioned. In September, 1661, there was a meeting between Calvert, D'Hinoyossa, Peter Alricks, and two Indian chiefs, to negotiate terms of peace. At this meeting the Marylanders agreed to furnish the Dutch annually three thousand hogsheads of tobacco, provided the Dutch would "supply them with negroes and other commodities."[433] Negroes were numerous, and an intercolonial traffic in slaves was established.

The first legislation on the slavery question in the colony of Delaware was had in 1721. "An Act for the trial of Negroes" provided that two justices and six freeholders should have full power to try "negro and mulatto slaves" for heinous offences. In case slaves were executed, the Assembly paid the owner two-thirds the value of such slave. It forbade convocations of slaves, and made it a misdemeanor to carry arms. During the same year an Act was passed punishing adultery and fornication. In case of children of a white woman by a slave, the county court bound them out until they were thirty-one years of age. In 1739 the Legislature passed an Act for the better regulation of servants and slaves, consisting of sixteen articles. It provided that no indentured servant should be sold into another government without the approval of at least one justice. Such servant could not be assigned over except before a justice. If a person manumitted a slave, good security was required: if he failed to do this, the manumission was of no avail. If free Negroes did not care for their children, they were liable to be bound out. In 1767 the Legislature passed another Act restraining manumission. It recites:--

"SECTION 2. And be it enacted by the honorable John Penn, esq. with his Majesty's royal approbation, Lieutenant Governor and Commander in Chief of the counties of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex, upon Delaware, and province of Pennsylvania, under the honorable Thomas Penn and Richard Penn, esquires, true and absolute proprietaries of the said counties and province, by and with the advice and consent of the Representatives of the freemen of the said counties, in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, That if any master or mistress shall, by will or otherwise, discharge or set free any Mulatto or Negro slave or slaves; he or she, or his or her executors or administrators, at the next respective County Court of Quarter Sessions, shall enter into a recognizance with sufficient sureties, to be taken in the name of the Treasurer of the said county for the time being, in the sum of Sixty Pounds for each slave so set free, to indemnify the county from any charge they or any of them may be unto the same, in case of such Negro or Mulattoe's being sick, or otherwise rendered incapable to support him or herself; and that until such recognizance be given, no such Negro or Mulatto shall be deemed free."[434]

The remainder of the slave code in this colony was like unto those of the other colonies, and therefore need not be described. Negroes had no rights, ecclesiastical or political. They had no property, nor could they communicate a relation of any character. They had no religious or secular training, and none of the blessings of home life. Goaded to the performance of the most severe tasks, their only audible reply was an occasional growl. It sent a feeling of terror through their inhuman masters, and occasioned them many ugly dreams.

FOOTNOTES:

[429] Dr. Stevens in his History of Georgia, vol. i. p. 288, says, "In the Swedish and German colony, which Gustavus Adolphus planted in Delaware, and which in many points resembled the plans of the Trustees, negro servitude was disallowed." But he gives no authority, I regret.Return to passage

[430] See Laws of Delaware, vol. i. Appendix, pp. 1-4.Return to passage

[431] Albany Records, vol. ii, p. 10.Return to passage

[432] Vincent's History of Delaware, p. 159.Return to passage

[433] Ibid., p. 381.Return to passage

[434] Laws of Delaware, vol. i. p. 436.Return to passage

XVIII. THE COLONY OF CONNECTICUT

1646-1775.

THE FOUNDING OF CONNECTICUT, 1631-36.--NO RELIABLE DATA GIVEN FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF SLAVES.--NEGROES WERE FIRST INTRODUCED SOME DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF THE COLONY.--"COMMITTEE FOR TRADE AND FOREIGN PLANTATIONS."--INTERROGATING THE GOVERNOR AS THE NUMBER OF NEGROES IN THE COLONY IN 1680.--THE LEGISLATURE (1690) PASSES A LAW PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE AND TREATMENT OF SLAVES AND FREE PERSONS.--AN ACT PASSED BY THE GENERAL COURT IN 1711, REQUIRING PERSONS MANUMITTING SLAVES TO MAINTAIN THEM.--REGULATING THE SOCIAL CONDUCT OF SLAVES IN 1723.--THE PUNISHMENT OF NEGRO, INDIAN, AND MULATTO SLAVES, FOR THE USE OF PROFANE LANGUAGE, IN 1630.--LAWFULNESS OF INDIAN AND NEGRO SLAVERY RECOGNIZED BY CODE, SEPT. 5, 1646.--LIMITED RIGHTS OF FREE NEGROES IN THE COLONY.--NEGRO POPULATIONS IN 1762.--ACT AGAINST IMPORTATION OF SLAVES, 1774.

Although the colony of Connecticut was founded between the years 1631 and 1636, there are to be found no reliable data by which to fix the time of the introduction of slavery there.[435] Like the serpent's entrance into the Garden of Eden, slavery entered into this colony stealthily; and its power for evil was discovered only when it had become a formidable social and political element. Vessels from the West Coast of Africa, from the West Indies, and from Barbadoes, landed Negroes for sale in Connecticut during the early years of its settlement. And for many years slavery existed here, without sanction of law, it is true, but perforce of custom. Negroes were bought as laborers and domestics, and it was a long time before their number called for special legislation. But, like a cancer, slavery grew until there was not a single colony in North America that could boast of its ability to check the dreadful curse. When the first slaves were introduced into this colony, can never be known; but, that there were Negro slaves from the beginning, we have the strongest historical presumption. For nearly two decades there was no reference made to slavery in the records of the colony.

In 1680 "the Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations" addressed to the governors of the North-American plantations or colonies a series of questions. Among the twenty-seven questions put to Gov. Leete of Connecticut, were two referring to Negroes. The questions were as follows:--

"17. What number of English, Scotch, Irish or Forreigners have (for these seaven yeares last past, or any other space of time) come yearly to plant and inhabit within your Corporation. And also, what Blacks and Slaves have been brought in within the said time, and att what rates?

"18. What number of Whites, Blacks or Mulattos have been born and christened, for these seaven yeares last past, or any other space of time, for as many yeares as you are able to state on account of?"[436]

To these the governor replied as follows:--

"17. Answ. For English, Scotts and Irish, there are so few come in that we cannot give a certain acco't. Som yeares come none; sometimes, a famaly or two, in a year. And for Blacks, there comes sometimes 3 or 4 in a year from Barbadoes; and they are sold usually at the rate of 22'li. a piece, sometimes more and sometimes less, according as men can agree with the master of vessells, or merchants that bring them hither.

"18. Answ. We can give no acco't. of the perfect number of either born; but fewe blacks; and but two blacks christened, as we know of."[437]

It is evident that the number of slaves was not great at this time, and that they were few and far between. The sullen and ofttimes revengeful spirit of the Indians had its effect upon the few Negro slaves in the colony. Sometimes they were badly treated by their masters, and occasionally they would run away. The country was new, the settlements scattered; and slavery as an institution, at this time and in this colony, in its infancy. The spirit of insubordination among the slave population seemed to call aloud for legislative restriction. In October, 1690, the Legislature passed the following bill:--

"Whereas many persons of this Colony doe for their necessary use purchase negroe seruants, and often times the sayd seruants run away to the great wronge, damage and disapoyntment of their masters and owners, for prevention of which for [221] the future, as much as || may be, it is ordered by this Court that Whateuer negroe or negroes shall hereafter, at any time, be fownd wandring out of the towne bownds or place to which they doe belong, without a ticket or pass from the authority, or their masters or owners, shall be stopt and secured by any of the inhabitants, or such as shall meet with them, and brought before the next authority to be examined and returned to their owners, who shall sattisfy for the charge if any be; and all ferrymen within this Colony are hereby required not to suffer any negroe without such certificate, to pass over their ferry by assisting them therein, upon the penalty of twenty shillings, to be payd as a fine to the county treasury, and to be leuyed upon theire estates for non-payment in way of distresse by warrant from any one Assistant or Com'r. This order to be observed as to vagrant and susspected persons fownd wandring from town to town, hauveing no passes; such to be seized for examination and farther disspose by the authority; and if any negroes are free and for themselves, travelling without such ticket or certificate, they to bear the charge themselves of their takeing up."[438]

The general air of complaint that pervades the above bill leads to the conclusion that it was required by an alarming state of affairs. The pass-system was a copy from the laws of the older colonies where slavery had long existed. By implication free Negroes had to secure from the proper authorities a certificate of freedom; and the bill required them to carry it, or pay the cost of arrest.

One of the most palpable evidences of the humanity of the Connecticut government was the following act passed in May, 1702:--

"Whereas it is observed that some persons in this Colonie having purchased Negro or Malatta Servants or Slaves, after they have spent the pricipall part of their time and strength in their masters service, doe sett them at liberty, and the said slaves not being able to provide necessaries for themselves may become a charge and burthen to the towns where they have served: for prevention whereof,

"It is ordered and enacted by this Court and the authority thereof: That every person in this Colonie that now is or hereafter shall be owner of a negro or mulatta servant or slave, and after some time of his or her being taken into imployment in his or her service, shall sett such servant or slave at liberty to provide for him or herselfe, if afterwards such servant or slave shall come to want, every such servant shall be relieved at the onely cost and charge of the person in whose service he or she was last reteined or taken, and by whome sett at liberty, or at the onely cost and charge of his or her heirs, executors or administrators, any law, usage or custome to the contrary notwithstanding."[439]

Massachusetts had acted and did act very cowardly about this matter. But Connecticut showed great wisdom and humanity in making a just and equitable provision for such poor and decrepit slaves as might find themselves turned out to charity after a long life of unrequited toil. Slavery was in itself "the sum of all villanies,"--the blackest curse that ever scourged the earth. To buy and sell human beings; to tear from the famishing breast of the mother her speechless child; to separate the husband from the wife of his heart; to wring riches from the unpaid toil of human beings; to tear down the family altar, and let lecherous beasts, who claim the name of "Christian," run over defenceless womanhood as swine over God's altar!--is there any thing worse, do you ask? Yes! To work a human being from youth to old age, to appropriate the labor of that being exclusively, to rob it of the blessings of this life, to poison every domestic charity, to fetter the intellect by the power of fatal ignorance, to withhold the privileges of the gospel of love; and then, when the hollow cough comes under an inclement sky, when the shadows slant, when the hand trembles, when the gait is shuffling, when the ear is deaf, the eye dim, when desire faileth,--then to turn that human being out to die is by far the profoundest crime man can be guilty of in his dealings with mankind! And slavery had so hardened men's hearts, that the above act was found to be necessary to teach the alphabet of human kindness. No wonder human forbearance was strained to its greatest tension when masters, thus liberating their slaves, assumed the lofty air of humanitarians who had actually done a noble act in manumitting a slave!

In 1708 the General Court was called upon to legislate against the commercial communion that had gone on between the slaves and free persons in an unrestricted manner for a long time. Slaves would often steal articles of household furniture, wares, clothing, etc., and sell them to white persons. And, in order to destroy the ready market this wide-spread kleptomania found, an Act was passed making it a misdemeanor for a free person to purchase any article from slaves. It is rather an interesting law, and is quoted in full.

"Whereas divers rude and evil minded persons for the sake of filthie lucre do frequently receive from Indians, malattoes and negro servants, money and goods stolen or obteined by other indirect and unlawful means, thereby incouraging such servants to steal from their masters and others: for redress whereof,

[35] Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authoritie of the same, That every free person whomsoever, which shall presume either openly or privately to buy or receive of or from any Indian, molato or negro servant or slave, any goods, money, merchandize, wares, or provisions, without order from the master or mistress of such servant or slave, every person so offending and being thereof convicted, shall be sentenced to restore all such money, goods, wares, merchandizes, or provisions, unto the partie injured, in specie, (if not altered,) and also forfeit to the partie double the value thereof over and above, or treble the value where the same are disposed of or made away. And if the person so offending be unable, or shall not make restitution as awarded, then to be openly whipt with so many stripes (not exceeding twentie,) as the court or justices that have cognizance of such offence shall order, or make satisfaction by service. And the Indian, negro, or molatto servant or slave, of or from whom such goods, money, wares, merchandizes or provisions shall be received or bought, if it appear to be stolen, or that shall steal any money, goods, or chattells, and be thereof convicted, although the buyer or receiver be not found, shall be punished by whipping not exceeding thirtie stripes, and the money, goods or chattels shall be restored to the partie injured, if it be found. And every assistant and justice of peace in the countie where such offence is committed, is hereby authorized to hear and determine all offences against this law, provided the damage exceed not the sum of fortie shillings."[440]

On the same day another act was passed, charging that as Mulatto and Negro slaves had become numerous in parts of the colony, destined to become insubordinate, abusive of white people, etc., and is as follows:--

"And whereas negro and molatto servants or slaves are become numerous in some parts of this Colonie, and are very apt to be turbulent, and often quarrelling with white people to the great disturbance of the peace:

"It is therefore ordered and enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authoritie of the same, That if any negro or malatto servant or slave disturb the peace, or shall offer to strike any white person, and be thereof convicted, such negro or malatto servant or slave shall be punished by whipping, at the discretion of the court, assistant or justice of the peace that shall have cognizance thereof, not exceeding thirtie stripes for one offence."[441]

In 1711 the General Court of Connecticut Colony signally distinguished itself by the passage of an act in harmony with that of 1702. It was found that indentured servants as well as slaves had been made the victims of the cruel policy of turning slaves and servants out into the world without means of support after they had become helpless, or had served out their time. This class of human beings had been cast aside, like a squeezed lemon, to be trodden under the foot of men. The humane and thoughtful men of the colony demanded a remedy at law, and it came in the following admirable bill:--

"An Act relating to Slaves, and such in particular as shall happen to become Servants for Time.

"It is ordered and enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That all slaves set at liberty by their owners, and all negro, malatto, or Spanish Indians, who are servants to masters for time, in case they come to want, after they shall be so set at liberty, or the time of their said service be expired, shall be relieved by such owners or masters respectively, their heirs, executors, or administrators; and upon their, or either of their refusal so to do, the said slaves and servants shall be relieved by the selectmen of the towns to which they belong, and the said selectmen shall recover of the said owners or masters, their heirs, executors, or administrators, all the charge and cost they were at for such relief, in the usual manner as in the case of any other debts."[442]

In 1723 an Act was passed regulating the social conduct, and restricting the personal rights, of slaves. The slaves were quite numerous at this time, and hence the colonists deemed it proper to secure repressive legislation. It is strange how anticipatory the colonies were during the zenith of the slavery institution! They were always expecting something of the slaves. No doubt they thought that it would be but the normal action of goaded humanity if the slaves should rise and cut their masters' throats. The colonists lived in mortal dread of their slaves, and the character of the legislation was but the thermometer of their fear. This Act was a slight indication of the unrest of the people of this colony on the slavery question:--

"[376] AN ACT TO PREVENT THE DISORDER OF NEGRO AND INDIAN SERVANTS AND SLAVES IN THE NIGHT SEASON.

"Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the publication of this act, if any negro or Indian servant or slave shall be found abroad from home in the night season, after nine of the clock, without special order from his or their master or mistress, it shall be lawful for any person or persons to apprehend and secure such negro or Indian servant or slave so offending, and him or them bring before the next assistant or justice of peace; which assistant or justice of peace shall have full power to pass sentence upon such negro or Indian servant or slave so offending, and order him or them to be publickly whipt on his or their naked body, not exceeding ten stripes, and pay cost of court, except his or their master or mistress shall redeem them by paying a fine not exceeding twenty shillings.

"And it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any such negro or Indian servant or slave as abovesaid shall have entertainment in any house after nine of the clock as aforesaid, except to do any business they may be sent upon, the head of the family that entertaineth or tolerates them in his or their house, or any the dependencies thereof, and being convicted thereof before any one assistant or justice of the peace, who shall have power to hear and determine the same, shall forfeit the sum of twenty shillings, one-half to the complainer and the other half to the treasury of the town where the offence is committed; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. And that it shall be the duty of the several grand-jurors and constables and tything-men, to make diligent enquiry into and present of all breaches of this act."[443]

The laws regulating slavery in the colony of Connecticut, up to this time, had stood, and been faithfully enforced. There had been a few infractions of the law, but the guilty had been punished. And in addition to statutory regulation of slaves, the refractory ones were often summoned to the bar of public opinion and dealt with summarily. Individual owners of slaves felt themselves at liberty to use the utmost discretion in dealing with this species of their property. So on every hand the slave found himself scrutinized, suspicioned, feared, hated, and hounded by the entire community of whites who were by law a perpetual posse comitatus. The result of too great vigilance and severe censorship was positive and alarming. It made the slave desperate. It intoxicated him with a malice that would brook no restraint. It is said that the use of vigorous adjectives and strong English is a relief to one in moments of trial. But even this was denied the oppressed slaves in Connecticut; for in May, 1730, a bill was passed punishing them for using strong language.

"AN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF NEGROES, INDIAN AND MULATTO SLAVES, FOR SPEAKING DEFAMATORY WORDS.

"Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any Negro, Indian or Molatto slave shall utter, publish and speak such words of any person that would by law be actionable if the same were uttered, published or spoken by any free person of any other, such Negro, Indian or Molatto slave, being thereof convicted before any one assistant or justice of the peace, (who are hereby impowred to hear and determine the same,) shall be punished by whipping, at the discretion of the assistant or justice before whom the tryal is, (respect being had to the circumstances of the case,) not exceeding forty stripes. And the said slave, so convict, shall be sold to defray all charges arising thereby, unless the same be by his or their master or mistress paid and answered, &c."[444]

The above act is the most remarkable document in this period of its kind. And yet there are two noticeable features in it: viz., the slave is to be proceeded against the same as if he were a free person; and he was to be entitled to offer evidence, enter his plea, and otherwise defend himself against the charge. This was more than was allowed in any of the other colonies.

On the 9th of September, 1730, Gov. J. Talcott, in a letter to the "Board of Trade," said that there were "about 700 Indian and Negro slaves" in the colony. The most of these were Negro slaves. For on the 8th of July, 1715, a proclamation was issued by the governor against the importation of Indians;[445] and on the 13th of October, 1715, a bill was passed "prohibiting the Importation or bringing into" the colony any Indian slaves. It was an exact copy of the Act of May, 1712, passed in the colony of Massachusetts.

The colony of Connecticut never established slavery by direct statute; but in adopting a code which was ordered by the General Court of Hartford to be "copied by the secretary into the book of public records," it gave the institution legal sanction. This code was signed on the 5th of September, 1646. It recognized the lawfulness of Indian and Negro slavery. This was done under the confederacy of the "United Colonies of New England."[446] For some reason the part of the code recognizing slavery is omitted from the revised laws of 1715. In this colony, as in Massachusetts, only members of the church, "and living within the jurisdiction," could be admitted to the rights of freemen. In 1715 an Act was passed requiring persons who desired to become "freemen of this corporation," to secure a certificate from the selectmen that they were "persons of quiet and peaceable behavior and civil conversation, of the age of twenty-one years, and freeholders." This provision excluded all free Negroes. It was impossible for one to secure such a certificate. Public sentiment alone would have frowned upon such an innovation upon the customs and manners of the Puritans. On the 17th of May, 1660, the following Act was passed: "It is ordered by this court, that neither Indian nor negar serv'ts shall be required to traine, watch or ward in the Collo:"[447]

To determine the status of the Negro here, this Act was necessary. He might be free, own his own labor; but if the law excluded him from the periodical musters and trainings, from the church and civil duties, his freedom was a mere misnomer. It is difficult to define the rights of a free Negro in this colony. He was restricted in his relations with the slaves, and in his intercourse with white people was regarded with suspicion. If he had, in point of law, the right to purchase property, the general prejudice that confronted him on every hand made his warmest friends judiciously conservative. There were no provisions made for his intellectual or spiritual growth. He was regarded by both the religious and civil government, under which he lived, as a heathen. Even his accidental conversion could not change his condition, nor mollify the feelings of the white Christians (?) about him. Like the wild animal, he was possessed with the barest privilege of getting something to eat. Beyond this he had nothing. Everywhere he turned, he felt the withering glance of a suspicious people. Prejudice and prescriptive legislation cast their dark shadows on his daily path; and the conscious superiority of the whites consigned him to the severest drudgery for his daily bread. The recollection of the past was distressing, the trials and burdens of the present were almost unbearable, while the future was one shapeless horror to him.

Perhaps the lowly and submissive acquiescence of the Negroes, bond and free, had a salutary effect upon the public mind. There is something awfully grand in an heroic endurance of undeserved pain. The white Christians married, and were given in marriage; they sowed and gathered rich harvests; they bought and built happy homes; beautiful children were born unto them; they built magnificent churches, and worshipped the true God: the present was joyous, and the future peopled with sublime anticipation. The contrast of these two peoples in their wide-apart conditions must have made men reflective. And added to this came the loud thunders of the Revolution. Connecticut had her orators, and they touched the public heart with the glowing coals of patriotic resolve. They felt the insecurity of their own liberties, and were now willing to pronounce in favor of the liberty of the Negroes. The inconsistency of asking for freedom, praying for freedom, fighting for freedom, and dying for freedom, when they themselves held thousands of human beings in bondage the most cruel the world ever knew, helped the cause of the slave. In 1762 the Negro population of this colony was four thousand five hundred and ninety.[448] Public sentiment was aroused on the slavery question; and in October, 1774, the following prohibition was directed at slavery:--

"Act against importation of slaves--"No Indian, negro, or mulatto slave shall at any time hereafter be brought or imported into this State, by sea or land, from any place or places whatsoever, to be disposed of, left or sold, within this State."[449]

The above bill was brief, but pointed; and showed that Connecticut was the only one of the New-England colonies that had the honesty and courage to legislate against slavery. And the patriotism and incomparable valor of the Negro soldiers of Connecticut, who proudly followed the Continental flag through the fires of the Revolutionary War, proved that they were worthy of the humane sentiment that demanded the Act of 1774.

FOOTNOTES:

[435] In the Capital Laws of Connecticut, passed on the 1st of December, 1642, the tenth law reads as follows. "10. If any man stealeth a man or mankind, he shall be put to death. Ex. 21 16." But this was the law in Massachusetts, and yet slavery existed there for one hundred and forty-three (143) years.Return to passage

[436] Conn. Col. Recs., 1678-89, p. 293.Return to passage

[437] Ibid., p. 298.Return to passage

[438] Conn Col Recs., 1689-1706, p. 40Return to passage

[439] Ibid. 1689-1706, pp. 375, 376.Return to passage

[440] Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, p. 52.

[441] Ibid., pp 51, 53.Return to passage

[442] Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, p. 233.Return to passage

[443] Conn. Col. Recs., 1717-25, pp. 390, 391.Return to passage

[444] Ibid., 1726-35, p. 290.Return to passage

[445] Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, pp. 515, 516.Return to passage

[446] Hazard, State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 1-6.Return to passage

[447] Conn. Col. Recs., vol. i. p. 349.Return to passage

[448] Pres. Stiles's MSS.Return to passage

[449] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. pp. 272, 273.Return to passage

XIX. THE COLONY OF RHODE ISLAND

1647-1775.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT IN RHODE ISLAND, MAY, 1647.--AN ACT PASSED TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN 1652, BUT WAS NEVER ENFORCED.--AN ACT SPECIFYING WHAT TIMES INDIAN AND NEGRO SLAVES SHOULD NOT APPEAR IN THE STREETS.--AN IMPOST-TAX ON SLAVES (1708).--PENALTIES IMPOSED ON DISOBEDIENT SLAVES.--ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENT IN THE COLONIES RECEIVES LITTLE ENCOURAGEMENT.--CIRCULAR LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF TRADE TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE ENGLISH COLONIES RELATIVE TO NEGRO SLAVES.--GOVERNOR CRANSTON'S REPLY.--LIST OF MILITIA-MEN, INCLUDING WHITE AND BLACK SERVANTS.--ANOTHER LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF TRADE.--AN ACT PREVENTING CLANDESTINE IMPORTATIONS AND EXPORTATION OF PASSENGERS, NEGROES, OR INDIAN SLAVES.--MASTERS OF VESSELS REQUIRED TO REPORT THE NAMES AND NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TO THE GOVERNOR.--VIOLATION OF THE IMPOST-TAX LAW ON SLAVES PUNISHED BY SEVERE PENALTIES.--APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, JULY 5, 1715, FROM THE FUND DERIVED FROM THE IMPOST-TAX, FOR THE PAVING OF THE STREETS OF NEWPORT.--AN ACT PASSED DISPOSING OF THE MONEY RAISED BY IMPOST-TAX.--IMPOST-LAW REPEALED, MAY, 1732.--AN ACT RELATING TO FREEING MULATTO AND NEGRO SLAVES PASSED 1728.--AN ACT PASSED PREVENTING MASTERS OF VESSELS FROM CARRYING SLAVES OUT OF THE COLONY, JUNE 17, 1757.--EVE OF THE REVOLUTION.--AN ACT PROHIBITING IMPORTATION OF NEGROES INTO THE COLONY IN 1774.--THE POPULATION OF RHODE ISLAND IN 1730 AND 1774.

Individual Negroes were held in bondage in Rhode Island from the time of the formation of the colonial government there, in May, 1647, down to the close of the eighteenth century. Like her sister colonies, she early took the poison of the slave-traffic into her commercial life, and found it a most difficult political task to rid herself of it. The institution of slavery was never established by statute in this colony; but it was so firmly rooted five years after the establishment of the government, that it required the positive and explicit prohibition of law to destroy it. On the 19th of May, 1652, the General Court passed the following Act against slavery. It is the earliest positive prohibition against slavery in the records of modern nations.

"Whereas, there is a common course practiced amongst English men to buy negers, to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever; for the preventinge of such practices among us, let it be ordered, that no blacke mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise, to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten yeares, or until they come to bee twentie-four yeares of age, if they bee taken in under fourteen, from the time of their cominge within the liberties of this Collonie. And at the end or terme of ten yeares to sett them free, as the manner is with the English servants. And that man that will not let them goe free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to that end that they may bee enslaved to others for a long time, hee or they shall forfeit to the Collonie forty pounds."[450]

The above law was admirable, but there was lacking the public sentiment to give it practical force in the colony. It was never repealed, and yet slavery flourished under it for a century and a half. Mr. Bancroft says, "The law was not enforced, but the principle lived among the people."[451] No doubt the principle lived among the people; but, practically, they did but little towards emancipating their slaves until the Revolutionary War cloud broke over their homes. There is more in the statement Mr. Bancroft makes than the casual reader is likely to discern.

The men who founded Rhode Island, or Providence Plantation as it was called early, were of the highest type of Christian gentlemen. They held advanced ideas on civil government and religious liberty. They realized, to the full, the enormity of the sinfulness of slavery; but while they hesitated to strike down what many men pronounced a necessary social evil, it grew to be an institution that governed more than it could be governed. The institution was established. Slaves were upon the farms, in the towns, and in the families, of those who could afford to buy them. The population of the colony was small; and to manumit the slaves in whom much money was invested, or to suddenly cut off the supply from without, was more than the colonists felt able to perform. The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak.

For a half-century there was nothing done by the General Court to check or suppress the slave-trade, though the Act of 1652 remained the law of the colony. The trade was not extensive. No vessels from Africa touched at Newport or Providence. The source of supply was Barbadoes; and, occasionally, some came by land from other colonies. Little was said for or against slavery during this period. It was a question difficult to handle. The sentiment against it was almost unanimous. It was an evil; but how to get rid of it, was the most important thing to be considered. During this period of perplexity, there was an ominous silence on slavery. The conservatism of the colonists produced the opposite in the Negro population. They began to think and talk about their "rights." The Act of 1652 had begun to bear fruit. At the expiration of ten years' service, slaves began to demand their freedom-papers. This set the entire Negro class in a state of expectancy. Their eagerness for liberty was interpreted by the more timid among the whites as the signal for disorder. A demand was made for legislation that would curtail the personal liberties of the Negroes in the evenings. It is well to produce the Act of Jan. 4, 1703, that the reader may see the similarity of the laws passed in the New-England colonies against Negroes:--

"An Act to restrict negroes and Indians for walking in unseasonable times in the night, and at other times not allowable.

"Voted, Be it enacted by this Assembly and the authority thereof, and it is hereby enacted, If any negroes or Indians, either freemen, servants, or slaves, do walk in the streets of the town of Newport, of any other town in this Collony, after nine of the clock of the night, without a certificate from their masters, or some English person of said family with them, or some lawfull excuse for the same, that it shall be lawfull for any person to take them up and deliver them to a Constable, to be secured, or see them secured, till the next morning, and then to be brought before some Justice of the Peace in said town, to be dealt withall, according to the recited Act, which said Justice shall cause said person or persons so offending, to be whipped at the publick whipping post in said town, not exceeding fifteen stripes upon their naked backs, except their incorrigible behavior require more. And all free negroes and free Indians to be under the same penalty, without a lawful excuse for their so being found walking in the streets after such unseasonable time of night.

"And be it further enacted, All and every house keeper, within said town or towns or Collony, that shall entertain men's servants, either negroes or Indians, without leave of their masters or to whom they do belong, after said set time of the night before mentioned, and being convicted of the same before any one Justice of the Peace, he or they shall pay for each his defect five shillings in money, to be for the use of the poor in the town where the person lives; and if refused to be paid down, to be taken by distraint by a warrant to any one Constable, in said town; any Act to the contrary notwithstanding."[452]

It is rather remarkable that this Act should prohibit free Negroes and free Indians from walking the streets after nine o'clock. In this particular this bill had no equal in any of the other colonies. This act seemed to be aimed with remarkable precision at the Negroes as a class, both bond and free. The influence of free Negroes upon the slaves had not been in harmony with the condition of the latter; and the above Act was intended as a reminder, in part, to free Negroes and Indians. It went to show that there was but little meaning in the word "free," when placed before a Negro's name. No such restriction could have been placed upon the personal rights of a white colonist; for, under the democratical government of the colony, a subject was greater than the government. No law could stand that was inimical to his rights as a freeman. But the free Negro had no remedy at law. He was literally between two conditions, bondage and freedom.

Attention has been called to the fact, that the Act of 1652 was never enforced. In April, 1708, an Act, laying an impost-tax upon slaves imported into the colony, was passed which really gave legal sanction to the slave-trade.[453] The following is the Act referred to:--

"And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that whereas, by an act of Assembly, in February last past, concerning the importing negroes, one article of said act, expressing that three pounds money shall be paid into the treasury for each negro imported into this colony; but upon exporting such negro in time limited in said act, said three pounds were to be drawn out of the treasury again by the importer:

"It is hereby enacted, that said sum for the future, shall not be drawn out, but there continued for the use in said act expressed; any act to the contrary, notwithstanding."[454]

The Act referred to as having passed "in February last past," cannot be found.[455] But, from the one quoted above, it is to be inferred that two objects were aimed at, viz.: First, under the codes of Massachusetts and Virginia, a drawback was allowed to an importer of a Negro who exported him within a stated time: the Rhode-Island Act of "February" had allowed importers this privilege. Second, notwithstanding the loud-sounding Act of 1652, this colony was not only willing to levy an impost-tax upon all slaves imported, but, in her greed for "blood money," even denied the importer the mean privilege, in exporting his slave, of drawing his rebate! The consistency of Rhode Island must have been a jewel that the other colonies did not covet.

The last section of the Act of 1703 was directed against "house keepers," who were to be fined for entertaining Negro or Indian slaves after nine o'clock. In 1708 another Act was passed, supplemental to the one of 1703, and added stripes as a penalty for non-payment of fines. Many white persons in the larger towns had grown rather friendly towards the slaves; and, even where they did not speak out in public against the enslavement of human beings, their hearts led them to the performance of many little deeds of kindness. They discovered many noble attributes in the Negro character, and were not backward in expressing their admiration. When summoned before a justice, and fined for entertaining Negroes after nine o'clock, they paid the penalty with a willingness and alacrity that alarmed the slave-holding caste. This was regarded as treason. Some could not pay the fine, and, hence, went free. The new Act intended to remedy this. It was as follows:--

"An Act to prevent the entertainment of Negroes, &c.

"Whereas, there is a law in this colony to suppress any persons from entertaining of negro slaves or Indian servants that are not their own, in their houses, or unlawfully letting them have strong drink, whereby they were damnified, such persons were to pay a fine of five shillings, and so by that means go unpunished, there being no provision made [of] what corporeal punishment they should have, if they have not wherewith to pay:

"Therefore, it is now enacted, that any such delinquent that shall so offend, if he or she shall not have or procure the sum of ten shillings for each defect, to be paid down before the authority before whom he or she hath been legally convicted, he or she shall be by order of said authority, publicly whipped upon their naked back, not exceeding ten stripes; any act to the contrary, notwithstanding. "[456]

It is certain that what little anti-slavery sentiment there was in the British colonies in North America during the first century of their existence received no encouragement from Parliament. From the beginning, the plantations in this new world in the West were regarded as the hotbeds in which slavery would thrive, and bring forth abundant fruit, to the great gain of the English government. All the appointments made by the crown were expected to be in harmony with the plans to be carried out in the colonies. From the settlement of Jamestown down to the breaking out of the war, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not a single one of the royal governors ever suffered his sense of duty to the crowned heads to be warped by local views on "the right of slavery." The Board of Trade was untiring in its attention to the colonies. And no subject occupied greater space in the correspondence of that colossal institution than slavery. The following circular letter, addressed to the governors of the colonies, is worthy of reproduction here, rather than in the Appendix. It is a magnificent window, that lets the light in upon a dark subject. It gives a very fair idea of the profound concern that the home government had in foreign and domestic slavery.

"CIRCULAR LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF TRADE TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE ENGLISH COLONIES, RELATIVE TO NEGRO SLAVES.

"APRIL 17, 1708.

"Sir: Some time since, the Queen was pleased to refer to us a petition relating to the trade of Africa, upon which we have heard what the Royal African Company, and the separate traders had to offer; and having otherwise informed ourselves, in the best manner we could, of the present state of that trade, we laid the same before Her Majesty. The consideration of that trade came afterwards into the house of commons, and a copy of our report was laid before the house; but the session being then too far spent to enter upon a matter of so great weight, and other business intervening, no progress was made therein. However, it being absolutely necessary that a trade so beneficial to the kingdom should be carried on to the greatest advantage, there is no doubt but the consideration thereof will come early before the Parliament at their next meeting; and as the well supplying of the plantations and colonies with sufficient numbers of negroes at reasonable prices, is in our opinion the chief point to be considered in regard to that trade, and as hitherto we have not been able to know how they have been supplied by the company, or by separate traders, otherwise than according to the respective accounts given by them, which for the most part are founded upon calculations made from their exports on one side and the other, and do differ so very much, that no certain judgment can be made upon those accounts.

"Wherefore, that we may be able at the next meeting of the Parliament to lay before both houses when required, an exact and authentic state of that trade, particularly in regard to the several plantations and colonies: we do hereby desire and strictly require you, that upon the receipt hereof, you do inform yourself from the proper officers or otherwise, in the best manner you can, what number of negroes have been yearly imported directly from Africa into Jamaica, since the 24th of June, 1698, to the 25th of December, 1707, and at what rate per head they have been sold each year, one with another, distinguishing the numbers that have been imported on account of the Royal African Company, and those which have been imported by separate traders; as likewise the rates at which such negroes have been sold by the company and by separate traders. We must recommend it to your care to be as exact and diligent therein as possibly you can, and with the first opportunity to transmit to us such accounts as aforesaid, that they may arrive here in due time, as also duplicates by the first conveyance.

"And that we may be the better able to make a true judgment of the present settlement of that trade, we must further recommend it to you to confer with some of the principal planters and inhabitants within your government touching that matter, and to let us know how the negro trade was carried on, and the island of Jamaica supplied with negroes till the year 1698, when that trade was laid open by act of Parliament; how it has been carried on, and negroes supplied since that time, or in what manner they think the said trade may best be managed for the benefit of the plantations.

"We further desire you will inform us what number of ships, if any, are employed from Jamaica to the coast of Africa in the negro trade, and how many separate traders are concerned therein.

"Lastly, whatever accounts you shall from time to time send us touching these matters of the negro trade, we desire that the same may be distinct, and not intermixed with other matters; and that for the time to come, you do transmit to us the like half yearly accounts of negroes, by whom imported and at what rates sold; the first of such subsequent accounts, to begin from Christmas, 1707, to which time those now demanded, are to be given. So we bid you heartily farewell,

"Your very loving friends, "STAMFORD, HERBERT, PH. MEADOWS, I. PULTENEY, R. MONCKTON.

"P.S. We expect the best account you can give us, with that expedition which the shortness of the time requires.

"Memorandum. This letter, mutatis mutandis, was writ to the Governors of Barbadoes, the Leeward Islands, Bermuda, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, the President of the Council of Virginia, the Governor of New Hampshire and the Massachusetts Bay, the Deputy Governor of Pennsylvania, the Lords proprietors of Carolina, the Governors and Companies of Connecticut and Rhode Island."[457]

The good Queen of England was interested in the traffic in human beings; and although the House of Commons was too busy to give attention to "a matter of so great weight," the "Board of Trade" felt that it was "absolutely necessary that a trade so beneficial to the kingdom should be carried on to the greatest advantage." England never gave out a more cruel document than the above circular letter. To read it now, under the glaring light of the nineteenth century, will almost cause the English-speaking people of the world to doubt even "the truth of history." Slavery did not exist at sufferance. It was a crime against the weak, ignorant, and degraded children of Africa, systematically perpetrated by an organized Christian government, backed by an army that grasped the farthest bounds of civilization, and a navy that overshadowed the oceans.

The reply of the governor of Rhode Island was not as encouraging as their lordships could have wished.

GOVERNOR CRANSTON'S REPLY.

"May it please your Lordships: In obedience to your Lordships' commands of the 15th of April last, to the trade of Africa.

"We, having inspected into the books of Her Majesty's custom, and informed ourselves from the proper officers thereof, by strict inquiry, can lay before your Lordships no other account of that trade than the following, viz:

"1. That from the 24th of June, 1698, to the 25th of December, 1707, we have not had any negroes imported into this colony from the coast of Africa, neither on the account of the Royal African Company, or by any of the separate traders.

"2. That on the 30th day of May, 1696, arrived at this port from the coast of Africa, the brigantine Seaflower, Thomas Windsor, master, having on board her forty-seven negroes, fourteen of which he disposed of in this colony, for betwixt L30 and L35 per head; the rest he transported by land for Boston, where his owners lived.

"3. That on the 10th of August, the 19th and 28th of October, in the year 1700, sailed from this port three vessels, directly for the coast of Africa; the two former were sloops, the one commanded by Nicho's Hillgroue, the other by Jacob Bill; the last a ship, commanded by Edwin Carter, who was part owner of the said three vessels, in company with Thomas Bruster, and John Bates, merchants, of Barbadoes, and separate traders from thence to the coast of Africa; the said three vessels arriving safe to Barbadoes from the coast of Africa, where they made the disposition of their negroes.

"4. That we have never had any vessels from the coast of Africa to this colony, nor any trade there, the brigantine above mentioned, excepted.

"5. That the whole and only supply of negroes to this colony, is from the island of Barbadoes; from whence is imported one year with another, betwixt twenty and thirty; and if those arrive well and sound, the general price is from L30 to L40 per head.

"According to your Lordships' desire, we have advised with the chiefest of our planters, and find but small encouragement for that trade to this colony; since by the best computation we can make, there would not be disposed in this colony above twenty or thirty at the most, annually, the reasons of which are chiefly to be attributed to the general dislike our planters have for them, by reason of then turbulent and unruly tempers.

"And that most of our planters that are able and willing to purchase any of them, are supplied by the offspring of those they have already, which increase daily; and that the inclination of our people in general, is to employ white servants before Negroes.

"Thus we have given our Lordships a true and faithful account of what hath occurred, relating to the trade of Africa from this colony; and if, for the future, our trade should be extended to those parts, we shall not fail transmitting accounts thereof according to your Lordships' orders, and that at all times, be ready to show ourselves,

"Your Lordships' obedient servant, "SAMUEL CRANSTON, Governor.

"NEWPORT, ON RHODE ISLAND, December 5, 1708."[458]

So in nine years there had been no Negro slaves imported into the colony; that in 1696 fourteen had been sold to the colonists for between thirty pounds and thirty-five pounds apiece; that this was the only time a vessel direct from the coast of Africa had touched in this colony; that the supply of Negro slaves came from Barbadoes, and that the colonists who would purchase slaves were supplied by the offspring of those already in the plantation; and that the colonists preferred white servants to black slaves. The best that can be said of Gov. Cranston's letter is, it was very respectful in tone. The following table was one of the enclosures of the letter. It is given in full on account of its general interest:--

"A list of the number of freemen and militia, with the servants, white and black, in the respective towns; as also the number of inhabitants in Her Majesty's colony of Rhode Island, &c., December the 5th, 1708.

+-------------+-------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+ | | | | | | TOTAL | | TOWNS. |FREEMEN|MILITIA.| WHITE | BLACK | NUMBER OF | | | | |SERVANTS.|SERVANTS.|INHABITANTS| +-------------+-------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+ | Newport | 190 | 358 | 20 | 220 | 2,203 | | Providence | 241 | 283 | 6 | 7 | 1,446 | | Portsmouth | 98 | 104 | 8 | 40 | 628 | | Warwick | 80 | 95 | 4 | 10 | 480 | | Westerly | 95 | 100 | 5 | 20 | 570 | | New Shoreham| 38 | 47 | -- | 6 | 208 | | Kingstown | 200 | 282 | -- | 85 | 1,200 | | Jamestown | 33 | 28 | 9 | 32 | 206 | | Greenwich | 40 | 65 | 3 | 6 | 240 | +-------------+-------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+ | Total | 1,015 | 1,362 | 56 | 426 | 7,181 | +-------------+-------+--------+---------+---------+-----------+

"It is to be understood that all men within this colony, from the age of sixteen to the age of sixty years, are of the militia, so that all freemen above and under said ages are inclusive in the abovesaid number of the militia.

"As to the increase or decrease of the inhabitants within five years last past, we are not capable to give an exact account, by reason there was no list ever taken before this (the militia excepted), which hath increased since the 14th of February, 1704-5 (at which time a list was returned to your Lordships), the number of 287.

"SAMUEL CRANSTON, Governor.

"NEWPORT, ON RHODE ISLAND, December the 5th, 1708."[459]

The Board of Trade replied to Gov. Cranston, under date of "Whitehall, January 16th, 1709-10.," saying they should be glad to hear from him "in regard to Negroes," etc.[460]

The letter of inquiry from the Board of Trade imparted to slave-dealers an air of importance and respectability. The institution was not near so bad as it had been thought to be; the royal family were interested in its growth; it was a gainful enterprise; and, more than all, as a matter touching the conscience, the Bible and universal practice had sanctified the institution. To attempt to repeal the Act of 1652 would have been an occasion unwisely furnished for anti-slavery men to use to a good purpose. The bill was a dead letter, and its enemies concluded to let it remain on the statute-book of the colony.

The experiment of levying an impost-tax upon Negro slaves imported into the colony had proved an enriching success. After 1709 the slave-trade became rather brisk. As the population increased, public improvements became necessary,--there were new public buildings in demand, roads to be repaired, bridges to be built, and the poor and afflicted to be provided for. To do all this, taxes had to be levied upon the freeholders. A happy thought struck the leaders of the government. If men would import slaves, and the freemen of the colony would buy them, they should pay a tax as a penalty for their sin.[461] And the people easily accommodated their views to the state of the public treasury.

Attention has been called already to the impost Act of 1708. On the 27th of February, 1712, the General Assembly passed "An Act for preventing clandestine importations and exportations of passengers, or negroes, or Indian slaves into or out of this colony," etc. The Act is quite lengthy. It required masters of vessels to report to the governor the names and number of all passengers landed into the colony, and not to carry away any person without a pass or permission from the governor, upon pain of a fine of fifty pounds current money of New England. Persons desiring to leave the colony had to give public notice for ten days in the most public place in the colony; and it specifies the duties of naval officers, and closes with the following in reference to Negro slaves, calling attention to the impost Act of 1708.--

"It was then and there enacted, that for all negroes imported into this colony, there shall be L3 current money, of New England, paid into the general treasury of this colony for each negro, by the owner or importer of said negro; reference being had unto the said act will more fully appear.

"But were laid under no obligation by the said act, to give an account to the Governor what negroes they did import, whereby the good intentions of said act were wholly frustrated and brought to no effect, and by the clandestinely hiding and conveying said negroes out of the town into the country, where they lie concealed:

"For the prevention of which for the future, it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the publication of this act, all masters of vessels that shall come into the harbor of Newport, or into any port of this government, that hath imported any negroes or Indian slaves, shall, before he puts on shore in any port of this government, or in the town of Newport, any negroes or Indian slaves, or suffers any negroes or Indian slaves to be put on shore by any person whatsoever, from on board his said vessel, deliver unto the naval officer in the town of Newport, a fair manifest under his hand, which shall specify the full number of negroes and Indian slaves he hath imported in his said vessel, of what sex, with their names, the names of their owners, or of those they are consigned to; to the truth of which manifest so given in, the said master shall give his corporal oath, or solemn engagement unto the said naval officer, who is hereby empowered to administer the same unto him, which said manifest being duly sworn unto, the said naval officer shall make a fair entry thereof in a book, which shall be prepared for that use, whereunto the said mister shall set his hand....

"And when the said master hath delivered his said manifest and sworn to it, as abovesaid, and before he hath landed on shore, or suffer to be landed, any negroes or Indian slaves as aforesaid, he, the said master, shall pay to the naval officer the sum of L3 current money, of New England, for each negro; and the sum of forty shillings of the like money for each Indian that shall be by him imported into this colony, or that shall be brought into this colony in the vessel whereof he is master.

"But if he hath not ready money to pay down, as aforesaid, he shall then give unto the said naval officer a bill, as the law directs, to pay unto him the full sum above mentioned, for each and every negro and Indian imported as above said, which bill shall run payable in ten days from the entering the manifest as above said; and if at the end of the ten days, the said master shall refuse to pay the full contents of his bill, that then the said naval officer shall deliver the said bill unto the Governor, or in his absence, to the next officer of the peace, as aforesaid who shall immediately proceed with the said master in the manner above said, by committing of him to Her Majesty's jail, where he shall remain without bail or mainprize, until he hath paid unto the naval officer, for the use of this colony, double the sum specified in his said bill, and all charges that shall accrue thereby; which money shall be paid out by the said naval officer, as the General Assembly of this colony shall order the same.

"And it is further enacted, that the naval officer who now is, and who ever shall be for the future put into said office, shall at his entering into the said office, take his engagement to the faithful performance of the above said acts. And for his encouragement, shall have such fees as are hereafter mentioned at the end of this act.

"And for the more effectual putting in execution those acts, and that none may plead ignorance:

"It is enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all masters of vessels trading to this government, shall give bond, with sufficient surety in the naval office, for the sum of L50, current money of New England."[462]

We have omitted a large portion of the bill, because of its length; but have quoted sufficient to give an excellent idea of the marvellous caution taken by the good Christians of Rhode Island to get every cent due them on account of the slave trade, which their prohibition did not prohibit. It was a carefully drawn bill for those days.

The diligence of the public officers in the seaport town of Newport was richly rewarded. The slave-trade now had the sanction and regulation of colonial law. The demand for Negro laborers was not affected in the least, while traders did not turn aside on account of three pounds per head tax upon every slave sold into Rhode Island. On the 5th of July, 1715, the General Assembly appropriated a portion of the fund derived from the impost-tax on imported Negroes to repairing the streets; and then strengthened and amplified the original law on impost-duties, etc. The following is the Act:--

"This Assembly, taking into consideration that Newport is the metropolitan town in this colony, and that all the courts of judicature within this colony are held there; and also, that it is the chief market town in the government; and that it hath very miry streets, especially that leading from the ferry, or landing place, up to the colony house, so that the members of the courts are very much discommoded therewith, and is a great hindrance to the transporting of provisions, &c., in and out of the said towns, to the great loss of the inhabitants thereof:--

"Therefore, be it enacted by this present Assembly, and by the authority thereof it is enacted, that the sum of L289 17s. 3d., now lying in the naval officer's hand, (being duties paid to this colony for importing of slaves), shall be, and is hereby granted to the town of Newport, towards paving the streets of Newport, from the ferry place, up to the colony house, in said Newport; to be improved by their directors, such as they shall, at their quarter meetings appoint for the same.

"And whereas, there was an act of Assembly, made at Newport in the year 1701-2, for the better preventing of fraud, and cozen, in paying the duties for importing of negro and Indian slaves into this colony, and the same being found in some clauses deficient, for the effecting of the full intent and purpose thereof:--

"Therefore, it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, that every master of ship, or vessel, merchant or other person or persons, importing or bringing into this colony any negro slave or slaves of what age soever, shall enter their number, names, and sex in the naval office; and the master shall insert the same in the manifest of his lading, and shall pay to the naval officer in Newport, L3 per head, for the use of this colony, for every negro, male or female, so imported, or brought in. And every such master, merchant, or other person, refusing or neglecting to pay the said duty within ten days after they are brought ashore in said colony, then the said naval officer, on knowledge thereof, shall enter an action and sue [for] the recovery of the same, against him or them, in an action of debt, in any of His Majesty's courts of record, within this colony.

"And if any master of ship or vessel, merchant or others, shall refuse or neglect to make entry, as aforesaid, of all negroes imported in such ship or vessel, or be convicted of not entering the full number, such master, merchant, or other person, shall forfeit and pay the sum of L6, for every one that he shall refuse or neglect to make entry, of one moiety thereof to His Majesty, for and towards the support of the government of this colony; and the other moiety to him or them that shall inform or sue for the same; to be recovered by the naval officer in manner as above said.

"And also, all persons that shall bring any negro or negroes into this colony, from any of His Majesty's provinces adjoining, shall in like manner enter the number, names and sex, of all such negroes, in the above said office, under the penalty of the like forfeiture, as above said, and to be recovered in like manner by the naval officer, and shall pay into the said office within the time above limited, the like sum of L3 per head; and for default of payment, the same to be recovered by the naval officer in like manner as aforesaid.

"Provided always, that if any gentleman, who is not a resident in this colony, and shall pass through any part thereof, with a waiting man or men with him, and doth not reside in this colony six months, then such waiting men shall be free from the above said duty; the said gentleman giving his solemn engagement, that they are not for sale; any act or acts, clause or clauses of acts, to the contrary hereof, in any ways, notwithstanding.

"Provided, that none of the clauses in the aforesaid act, shall extend to any masters or vessels, who import negroes into this colony, directly from the coast of Africa.

"And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the money raised by the impost of negroes, as aforesaid, shall be disposed of as followeth, viz.:

"The one moiety of the said impost money to be for the use of the town of Newport, to be disposed of by the said town towards paving the streets of said town, and for no other use whatsoever, for and during the full time of seven years from the publication of this act, and that L60 of said impost money be for, and towards the erecting of a substantial bridge over Potowomut river, at or near the house of Ezekiel Hunt, in East Greenwich, and to no other use whatsoever.

"And that Major Thomas Frye and Capt. John Eldredge be the persons appointed to order and oversee the building of said bridge, and to render an account thereof, to the Assembly, and the said Major Frye and Capt. Eldredge to be paid for their trouble and pains, out of the remaining part of said impost money, and the remainder of said impost money to be disposed of as the Assembly shall from time to time see fit."[463]

And in October, 1717, the following order passed the assembly:--

"It is ordered by this Assembly, that the naval officer pay out of the impost money on slaves, L100, to the overseer that oversees the paving of the streets of Newport, to be improved for paying the charges of paving said streets."[464]

The fund accruing from the impost-duty on slaves was regarded with great favor everywhere, especially in Newport. It had cleaned her streets and lightened the burdens of taxation which rested so grievously upon the freeholders. There was no voice lifted against the iniquitous traffic, and the conscience of the colony was at rest. In June, 1729, the following Act was passed:--

"An Act disposing of the money raised in this colony on importing negro slaves into this colony.

"Forasmuch as there is an act of Assembly made in this colony the 27th day of February, A.D. 1711, laying a duty of L3 per head on all slaves imported into this colony, as is in said act is expressed; and several things of a public nature requiring a fund to be set apart for carrying them on:--

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, and by the authority of the same it is enacted and declared, that henceforward all monies that shall be raised in this colony by the aforesaid account, on any slaves imported into this colony, shall be employed, the one moiety thereof for the use of the town of Newport, towards paving and amending the streets thereof, and the other moiety, for, and towards the support, repairing and mending the great bridges on the main, in the country roads, and for no other use whatsoever; any thing in the aforesaid act to the contrary, in anywise notwithstanding."[465]

It is wonderful how potential the influence of money is upon mankind. The sentiments of the good people had been scattered to the winds; and they had found a panacea for the violated convictions of the wrong of slavery in the reduction of their taxes, new bridges, and cleansed streets. Conscience had been bribed into acquiescence, and the iniquity thrived. There were those who still endeavored to escape the vigilance of the naval officers, and save the three pounds on each slave. But the diligence and liberality of the authorities were not to be outdone by the skulking stinginess of Negro-smugglers. On the 18th of June, 1723, the General Assembly passed the following order:--

"Voted, that Mr. Daniel Updike, the attorney general, be, and he hereby is ordered, appointed and empowered to gather in the money due to this colony, for the importation of negroes, and to prosecute, sue and implead such person or persons as shall refuse to pay the same; and that he be allowed five shillings per head, for every slave that shall be hereafter imported into this colony, out of the impost money; and that he be also allowed ten per cent. more for all such money as he shall recover of the outstanding debts; and in all respects to have the like power as was given to the naval officer by the former act."[466]

The above illustrates the spirit of the times. There was a mania for this impost-tax upon stolen Negroes, and the law was to be enforced against all who sought to evade its requirements. But the Assembly had a delicate sense of equity, as well as an inexorable opinion of the precise demands of the law in its letter and spirit. On the 19th of June, 1716, the following was passed:--

"It is ordered by this Assembly, that the duty of two sucking slaves imported into this colony by Col. James Vaughan, of Barbadoes, be remitted to the said James Vaughan."[467]

It was not below the dignity of the Legislature of the colony of Rhode Island to pass a bill of relief for Col. Vaughan, and refund to him the six pounds he had paid to land his two sucking Negro baby slaves! In June, 1731, the naval officer, James Cranston, called the attention of the Assembly to the case of one Mr. Royall,--who had imported forty-five Negroes into the colony, and after a short time sold sixteen of them into the Province of Massachusetts Bay, where there was also an impost-tax,--and asked directions. The Assembly replied as follows:--

"Upon consideration whereof, it is voted and ordered, that the duty to this colony of the said sixteen negroes transported into the Massachusetts Bay, as aforesaid, be taken off and remitted; but that he collect the duty of the other twenty-nine."[468]

But the zeal of the colony in seeking the enforcement of the impost-law created a strong influence against it from without; and by order of the king the entire law was repealed in May, 1732.[469]

The cruel practice of manumitting aged and helpless slaves became so general in this plantation, that the General Assembly passed a law regulating it, in February, 1728. It was borrowed very largely from a similar law in Massachusetts, and reads as follows:--

"An Act relating to freeing mulatto and negro slaves.

"Forasmuch, as great charge, trouble and inconveniences have arisen to the inhabitants of divers towns in this colony, by the manumitting and setting free mulatto and negro slaves; for remedying whereof, for the future,--

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of this colony, and by the authority of the same it is enacted, that no mulatto or negro slave, shall be hereafter manumitted, discharged or set free, or at liberty, until sufficient security be given to the town treasurer of the town or place where such person dwells, in a valuable sum of not less than L100, to secure and indemnify the town or place from all charge for, or about such mulatto or negro, to be manumitted and set at liberty, in case he or she by sickness, lameness or otherwise, be rendered incapable to support him or herself.

"And no mulatto or negro hereafter manumitted, shall be deemed or accounted free, for whom security shall not be given as aforesaid, but shall be the proper charge of their respective masters or mistresses, in case they should stand in need of relief and support; notwithstanding any manumission or instrument of freedom to them made and given; and shall be liable at all times to be put forth to service by the justices of the peace, or wardens of the town."[470]

It is very remarkable that there were no lawyers to challenge the legality of such laws as the above, which found their way into the statute books of all the New-England colonies. There could he no conditional emancipation. If a slave were set at liberty, why he was free, and, if he afterwards became a pauper, was entitled to the same care as a white freeman. But it is not difficult to see that the status of a free Negro was difficult of definition. When the Negro slave grew old and infirm, his master no longer cared for him, and the public was protected against him by law. Death was his most beneficent friend.

In October, 1743, a widow lady named Comfort Taylor, of Bristol County, Massachusetts Bay, sued and obtained judgment against a Negro named Cuff Borden for two hundred pounds, and cost of suit "for a grievous trespass." Cuff was a slave. An ordinary execution would have gone against his person: he would have been imprisoned, and nothing more. In view of this condition of affairs, Mrs. Taylor petitioned the General Assembly of Rhode Island, praying that authority be granted the sheriff to sell Cuff, as other property, to satisfy the judgment. The Assembly granted her prayer as follows:--

"Upon consideration whereof, it is voted and resolved, that the sheriff of the said county of Newport, when he shall receive the execution against the said negro Cuff, be, and he is hereby fully empowered to sell said negro Cuff as other personal estate: and after the fine of L20 be paid into the general treasury, and all other charges deducted out of the price of said negro, the remainder to be appropriated in said satisfying said execution."[471]

This case goes to show that in Rhode Island Negro slaves were rated, at law, as chattel property, and could be taken in execution to satisfy debts as other personal property.

A great many slaves availed themselves of frequent opportunities of going away in privateers and other vessels. With but little before them in this life, they were even willing to risk being sold into slavery at some other place, that they might experience a change. They made excellent seamen, and were greatly desired by masters of vessels. This went on for a long time. The loss to the colony was great; and the General Assembly passed the subjoined bill as a check to the stampede that had become quite general:--

"AN ACT TO PREVENT THE COMMANDERS OF PRIVATEERS, OR MASTERS OF ANY OTHER VESSELS, FROM CARRYING SLAVES OUT OF THIS COLONY.

"Whereas, it frequently happens that the commanders of privateers, and masters of other vessels, do carry off slaves that are the property of inhabitants of this colony, and that without the privity or consent of their masters or mistresses; and whereas, there is no law of this colony for remedying so great an evil,--

"Be it therefore enacted by this General Assembly, and by the authority of the same, it is enacted, that from and after the publication of this act, if any commander of a private man of war, or master of a merchant ship or other vessel, shall knowingly carry away from, or out of this colony, a slave or slaves, the property of any inhabitant thereof, the commander of such privateer, or the master of the said merchant ship or vessel, shall pay, as a fine, the sum of L500, to be recovered by the general treasurer of this colony for the time being, by bill, plaint, or information in any court of record within this colony.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the owner or owners of any slave or slaves that may be carried away, as aforesaid, shall have a right of action against the commander of the said privateer, or master of the said merchant ship or vessel, or against the owner or owners of the same, in which the said slave or slaves is, or are carried away, and by the said action or suit, recover of him or them, double damages.

"And whereas, disputes may arise respecting the knowledge that the owner or owners, commanders or masters of the said private men of war, merchant ships or vessels may have of any slave or slaves being on board a privateer, or merchant ship or vessel,--

"Be it therefore further enacted, and by the authority aforesaid, it is enacted, that when any owner or owners of any slave or slaves in this colony, shall suspect that a slave or slaves, to him, her or them belonging, is, or are, on board any private man of war, or merchant ship or vessel, the owner or owners of such slave or slaves may make application, either to the owner or owners, or to the commander or master of the said ship or vessel, before its sailing, and inform him or them thereof, which being done in the presence of one or more substantial witness or witnesses, the said information or application shall amount to, and be construed, deemed and taken to be a full proof of his or their knowledge thereof, provided, the said slave or slaves shall go in any such ship or vessel.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if the owner or owners of any slave or slaves in this colony, or any other person or persons, legally authorized by the owner or owners of a slave or slaves, shall attempt to go on board any privateer, or a merchant ship or vessel, to search for his, her or their slave or slaves, and the commander or master of such ship or vessel, or other officer or officers on board the same, in the absence of the commander or master, shall refuse to permit such owner or owners of a slave or slaves, or other person or persons, authorized, as aforesaid, to go on board and search for the slave or slaves by him, her or them missed, or found absent, such refusal shall be deemed, construed, and taken to be full proof that the owner or owners, commander or master of the said privateer or other ship or vessel, hath, or have a real knowledge that such slave or slaves is, or are on board.

"And this act shall be forthwith published, and therefrom have, and take force and effect, in and throughout this colony.

"Accordingly the said act was published by the beat of drum, on the 17th day of June, 1757, a few minutes before noon, by

"THO. WARD, Secretary."[472]

The education of the Negro slave in this colony was thought to be inimical to the best interests of the master class. Ignorance was the sine qua non of slavery. The civil government and ecclesiastical establishment ground him, body and spirit, as between "the upper and nether millstones." But the Negro was a good listener, and was not unconscious of what was going on around him. He was neither blind nor deaf.

The fires of the Revolutionary struggle began to melt the frozen feelings of the colonists towards the slaves. When they began to feel the British lion clutching at the throat of their own liberties, the bondage of the Negro stared them in the face. They knew the Negro's power of endurance, his personal courage, his admirable promptitude in the performance of difficult tasks, and his desperate spirit when pressed too sharply. The thought of such an ally for the English army, such an element in their rear, was louder in their souls than the roar of the enemy's guns. The act of June, 1774, shows how deeply the people felt on the subject.

"AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION OF NEGROES INTO THIS COLONY.

Whereas, the inhabitants of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights and liberties, among which, that of personal freedom must be considered as the greatest; as those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves, should be willing to extend personal liberty to others;--

"Therefore, be it enacted by this General Assembly, and by the authority thereof it is enacted, that for the future, no negro or mulatto slave shall be brought into this colony; and in case any slave shall hereafter be brought in, he or she shall be, and are hereby, rendered immediately free, so far as respects personal freedom, and the enjoyment of private property, in the same manner as the native Indians.

"Provided, nevertheless, that this law shall not extend to servants of persons travelling through this colony, who are not inhabitants thereof, and who carry them out with them, when they leave the same.

"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto slave, belonging to any inhabitant of either of the British colonies, islands or plantations, who shall come into this colony, with an intention to settle or reside, for a number of years, therein; but such negro or mulatto, so brought into this colony, by such person inclining to settle or reside therein, shall be, and remain, in the same situation, and subject in like manner to their master or mistress, as they were in the colony or plantation from whence they removed.

"Provided, nevertheless, that if any person, so coming into this colony, to settle or reside, as aforesaid, shall afterwards remove out of the same, such person shall be obliged to carry all such negro or mulatto slaves, as also all such as shall be born from them, out of the colony with them. "Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto slave brought from the coast of Africa, into the West Indies, on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and which negro or mulatto slave could not be disposed of in the West Indies, but shall be brought into this colony.

"Provided, that the owner of such negro or mulatto slave give bond to the general treasurer of the said colony, within ten days after such arrival in the sum of L100, lawful money, for each and every such negro or mulatto slave so brought in, that such negro or mulatto slave shall be exported out of the colony, within one year from the date of such bond; if such negro or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to be removed.

"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto slave that may be on board any vessel belonging to this colony, now at sea, in her present voyage."[473]

In 1730 the population of Rhode Island was, whites, 15,302; Indians, 985; Negroes, 1,648; total, 17,935. In 1749 there were 28,439 whites, and 3,077 Negroes. Indians were not given this year. In 1756 the whites numbered 35,939, the Negroes 4,697. In 1774 Rhode Island contained 9,439 families, Newport had 9,209 inhabitants. The whites in the entire colony numbered 54,435, the Negroes, 3,761, and the Indians, 1,482.[474] It will be observed that the Negro population fell off between the years 1749 and 1774. It is accounted for by the fact mentioned before,--that many ran away on ships that came into the Province.

The Negroes received better treatment at this time than at any other period during the existence of the colony. There was a general relaxation of the severe laws that had been so rigidly enforced. They took great interest in public meetings, devoured with avidity every scrap of news regarding the movements of the Tory forces, listened with rapt attention to the patriotic conversations of their masters, and when the storm-cloud of war broke were as eager to fight for the independence of North America as their masters.

FOOTNOTES:

[450] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. i. p. 243.Return to passage

[451] Bancroft, vol. i. 5th ed. p. 175.Return to passage

[452] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iii. pp. 492, 493.Return to passage

[453] There is no law making the manufacturing of whiskey legal in the United States; and yet the United-States government makes laws to regulate the business, and collects a revenue from it. It exists by and with the consent of the government, and, in a sense, is legal.Return to passage

[454] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iv. p. 34.Return to passage

[455] I have searched diligently for the Act of February, among the Rhode-Island Collections and Records, but have not found it. It was evidently more comprehensive than the above Act.Return to passage

[456] R.I. Col. Recs., vol iv. p. 50.Return to passage

[457] R.I. Col. Recs, vol. iv. pp. 53, 54.Return to passage

[458] R.I. Coll. Recs., vol. iv. pp. 54, 55.Return to passage

[459] R.I. Col. Recs., vol iv. p. 59.Return to passage

[460] J. Carter Brown's Manuscripts, vol. viii. Nos. 506, 512.Return to passage

[461] It was a specious sort of reasoning. I learn that the bank over on the corner is to be robbed to-night at twelve o'clock. Shall I go and rob it at ten o'clock; because, if I do not do so, another person will, two hours later?Return to passage

[462] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iv. pp. 133-135.Return to passage

[463] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iv. pp. 191-193.Return to passage

[464] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iv p. 225.Return to passage

[465] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iv. pp. 423, 424.Return to passage

[466] Ibid., p. 330.Return to passage

[467] Ibid., vol. iv. p. 209.Return to passage

[468] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. iv. p. 454.Return to passage

[469] Ibid., vol. iv. p. 471.Return to passage

[470] Ibid., vol. iv. pp. 415, 416.Return to passage

[471] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. v. pp. 72, 73.Return to passage

[472] R.I. Col. Recs., vol vi. pp. 64, 65.Return to passage

[473] R.I. Col. Recs., vol. vii. pp. 251, 252.Return to passage

[474] American Annals, vol ii. pp. 107,155, 156, 184, and 265.Return to passage

XX. THE COLONY OF NEW JERSEY

1664-1775.

NEW JERSEY PASSES INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENGLISH.--POLITICAL POWERS CONVEYED TO BERKELEY AND CARTERET.--LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.--THE COLONY DIVIDED INTO EAST AND WEST JERSEY--SEPARATE GOVERNMENTS.--AN ACT CONCERNING SLAVERY BY THE LEGISLATURE OF EAST JERSEY.--GENERAL APPREHENSION RESPECTING THE RISING OF NEGRO AND INDIAN SLAVES.--EAST AND WEST JERSEY SURRENDER THEIR RIGHTS OF GOVERNMENT TO THE QUEEN.--AN ACT FOR REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF SLAVES.--IMPOST-TAX OF TEN POUNDS LEVIED UPON EACH NEGRO IMPORTED INTO THE COLONY.--THE GENERAL COURT PASSES A LAW RECREATING THE TRIAL OF SLAVES.--NEGROES RULED OUT OF THE MILITIA ESTABLISHMENT UPON CONDITION.--POPULATION OF THE JERSEYS IN 1738 AND 1745.

The colony of New Jersey passed into the control of the English in 1664; and the first grant of political powers, upon which the government was erected, was conveyed by the Duke of York to Berkeley and Carteret during the same year. In the "Proprietary Articles of Concession," the words servants, slaves, and Christian servants occur. It was the intention of the colonists to draw a distinction between "servants for a term of years," and "servants for life," between white servants and black slaves, between Christians and pagans.

When slavery was introduced into Jersey is not known.[475] There is no doubt but that it made its appearance there almost as early as in New Netherlands. The Dutch, the Quakers, and the English held slaves. But the system was milder here than in any of the other colonies. The Negroes were scattered among the families of the whites, and were treated with great humanity. Legislation on the subject of slavery did not begin until the middle of the eighteenth century, and it was not severe. Before this time, say three-quarters of a century, a few Acts had been passed calculated to protect the slave element from the sin of intoxication. In 1675 an Act passed, imposing fines and punishments upon any white person who should transport, harbor, or entertain "apprentices, servants, or slaves." It was perfectly natural that the Negroes should be of a nomadic disposition. They had no homes, no wives, no children,--nothing to attach them to a locality. Those who resided near the seacoast watched, with unflagging interest, the coming and going of the mysterious white-winged vessels. They hung upon the storied lips of every fugitive, and dreamed of lands afar where they might find that liberty for which their souls thirsted as the hart for the water-brook. Far from their native country, without the blessings of the Church, or the warmth of substantial friendship, they fell into a listless condition, a somnolence that led them to stagger against some of the regulations of the Province. Their wandering was not inspired by any subjective, inherent, generic evil: it was but the tossing of a weary, distressed mind under the dreadful influences of a hateful dream. And what little there is in the early records of the colony of New Jersey is at once a compliment to the humanity of the master, and the docility of the slave.

In 1676 the colony was divided into East and West Jersey, with separate governments. The laws of East Jersey, promulgated in 1682, contained laws prohibiting the entertaining of fugitive servants, or trading with Negroes. The law respecting fugitive servants was intended to destroy the hopes of runaways in the entertainment they so frequently obtained at the hands of benevolent Quakers and other enemies of "indenture" and slavery. The law-makers acted upon the presumption, that as the Negro had no property, did not own himself, he could not sell any article of his own. All slaves who attempted to dispose of any article were regarded with suspicion. The law made it a misdemeanor for a free person to purchase any thing from a slave, and hence cut off a source of revenue to the more industrious slaves, who by their frugality often prepared something for sale.

In 1694 "an Act concerning slaves" was passed by the Legislature of East Jersey. It provided, among other things, for the trial of "negroes and other slaves, for felonies punishable with death, by a jury of twelve persons before three justices of the peace; for theft, before two justices; the punishment by whipping." Here was the grandest evidence of the high character of the white population in East Jersey. In every other colony in North America the Negro was denied the right of "trial by jury," so sacred to Englishmen. In Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut,--in all the colonies,--the Negro went into court convicted, went out convicted, and was executed, upon the frailest evidence imaginable. But here in Jersey the only example of justice was shown toward the Negro in North America. "Trial by jury" implied the right to be sworn, and give competent testimony. A Negro slave, when on trial for his life, was accorded the privilege of being tried by twelve honest white colonists before three justices of the peace. This was in striking contrast with the conduct of the colony of New York, where Negroes were arrested upon the incoherent accusations of dissolute whites and terrified blacks. It gave the Negroes a new and an anomalous position in the New World. It banished the cruel theory of Virginia, New York, and Connecticut, that the Negro was a pagan, and therefore should not be sworn in courts of justice, and threw open a wide door for his entrance into a more hopeful state than he had, up to that time, dared to anticipate. It allowed him to infer that his life was a little more than that of the brute that perisheth; that he could not be dragged by malice through the forms of a trial, without jury, witness, counsel, or friend, to an ignominious death, that was to be regretted only by his master, and his regrets to be solaced by the Legislature paying "the price;" that the law regarded him as a man, whose life was too dear to be committed to the disposition of irascible men, whose prejudices could be mollified only in extreme cruelty or cold-blooded murder. It had much to do toward elevating the character of the Negro in New Jersey. It first fired his heart with the noble impulse of gratitude, and then led him to hope. And how much that little word means! It causes the soul to spread its white pinions to every favoring breeze, and hasten on to a propitious future. And then the fact that Negroes had rights acknowledged by the statutes, and respectfully accorded them by the courts, had its due influence upon the white colonists. The men, or class of men, who have rights not challenged, command the respect of others. The fact clothes them with dignity as with a garment. And then, by the inevitable logic of the position of the courts of East Jersey, the colonists were led to the conclusion that the Negroes among them had other rights. And, as it has been said already, they received better treatment here than in any other colony in the country.

In West Jersey happily the word "slave" was omitted from the laws. Only servants and runaway servants were mentioned, and the selling of rum to Negroes and Indians was strictly forbidden.

The fear of insurrection among Indians and Negroes was general throughout all of the colonies. One a savage, and the other untutored, they knew but two manifestations,--gratitude and revenge. It was deemed a wise precaution to keep these unfortunate people as far removed from the exciting influences of rum as possible. Chapter twenty-three of a law passed in West Jersey in 1676, providing for publicity in judicial proceedings, concludes as follows:--

"That all and every person and persons inhabiting the said province, shall, as far as in us lies, be free from oppression and slavery."[476]

In 1702 the proprietors of East and West Jersey surrendered their rights of government to the queen. The Province was immediately placed with New York, and the government committed to the hands of Lord Cornbury.[477] In 1704 "An Act for regulating negroe, Indian and mulatto slaves within the province of New Jersey," was introduced, but was tabled and disallowed. The Negroes had just cause for the fears they entertained as to legislation directed at the few rights they had enjoyed under the Jersey government. Their fellow-servants over in New York had suffered under severe laws, and at that time had no privilege in which they could rejoice. In 1713 the following law was passed:--

"An act for regulating slaves. (1 Nev. L., c. 10.) Sect. 1. Against trading with slaves. 2. For arrest of slaves being without pass. 3. Negro belonging to another province, not having license, to be whipped and committed to jail. 4. Punishment of slaves for crimes to be by three or more justices of the peace, with five of the principal freeholders, without a grand jury; seven agreeing, shall give judgment. 5. Method in such causes more particularly described. Provides that 'the evidence of Indian, negro, or mulatto slaves shall be admitted and allowed on trials of such slaves, on all causes criminal.' 6. Owner may demand a jury. 7, 8. Compensation to owners for death of slave. 9. A slave for attempting to ravish any white woman, or presuming 'to assault or strike any free man or woman professing Christianity,' any two justices have discretionary powers to inflict corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb. 10. Slaves, for stealing, to be whipped. 11. Penalties on justices, &c., neglecting duty. 12. Punishment for concealing, harboring, or entertaining slaves of others. 13. Provides that no Negro, Indian, or mulatto that shall thereafter be made free, shall hold any real estate in his own right, in fee simple or fee tail. 14. 'And whereas it is found by experience that free Negroes are an idle, slothful people, and prove very often a charge to the place where they are,' enacts that owners manumitting, shall give security, &c."[478]

Nearly all the humane features of the Jersey laws were supplanted by severe prohibitions, requirements, and penalties. The trial by jury was construed to mean that one Negro's testimony was good against another Negro in a trial for a felony, allowing the owner of the slave to demand a jury. Humane masters were denied the right to emancipate their slaves, and the latter were prohibited from owning real property in fee simple or fee tail. Having stripped the Negro of the few rights he possessed, the General Court, during the same year, went on to reduce him to absolute property, and levied an impost-tax of ten pounds upon every Negro imported into the colony, to remain in force for seven years.

In 1754 an Act provided, that in the borough of Elizabeth any white servant or servants, slave or slaves, which shall "be brought before the Mayor, &c., by their masters or other inhabitant of the Borough, for any misdemeanor rude or disorderly behavior, may be committed to the workhouse to hard labor and receive correction not exceeding thirty lashes."[479] This Act was purely local in character, and indiscriminate in its application to every class of servants. It was nothing more than a police regulation, and as such was a wholesome law.

In 1768 the General Court passed An Act to regulate the trial of slaves for murder and other crimes and to repeal so much of an act, &c. Sections one and two provided for the trial of slaves by the ordinary higher criminal courts. Section three provided that the expenses incurred in the execution of slaves should be levied upon all the owners of able-bodied slaves in the county, by order of the justices presiding at the trial. Section four repealed sections four, five, six, and seven of the Act of 1713. This was significant. It portended a better feeling toward the Negroes, and illumined the dark horizon of slavery with the distant light of hope. A strong feeling in favor of better treatment for Negro slaves made itself manifest at this time. When the Quaker found the prejudice against himself subsiding, he turned, like a good Samaritan, to pour the wine of human sympathy into the lacerated feelings of the Negro. Private instruction was given to them in many parts of Jersey. The gospel was expounded to them in its beauty and simplicity, and produced its good fruit in better lives.

The next year, 1769, a mercenary spirit inspired and secured the passage of another Act levying a tax upon imported slaves, and requiring persons manumitting slaves to give better securities. It reads,--

"Whereas duties on the importation of negroes in several of the neighboring colonies hath, on experience, been found beneficial in the introduction of sober industrious foreigners, to settle under his Majesty's allegiance, and the promoting a spirit of industry among the inhabitants in general, in order therefore to promote the same good designs in this government and that such as purchase slaves may contribute some equitable proportion of the public burdens."[480]

How an impost-tax upon imported slaves would be "beneficial in the introduction of sober industrious foreigners," is not easily perceived; and how it would promote "a spirit of industry among the inhabitants in general," is a problem most difficult of solution. But these were the lofty reasons that inspired the General Court to seek to fill the coffers of the Province with money drawn from the slave-lottery, where human beings were raffled off to the highest bidders in the colony. The cautious language in which the Act was couched indicated the sensitive state of the public conscience on slavery at that time. They were afraid to tell the truth. They did not dare to say to the people: We propose to repair the streets of your towns, the public roads, and lighten the burden of taxation, by saying to men-stealers, we will allow you to sell your cargoes of slaves into this colony provided you share the spoils of your superlative crime! No, they had to tell the people that the introduction of Negro slaves, upon whom there was a tax, would entice sober and industrious white people to come among them, and would quicken the entire Province with a spirit of thrift never before witnessed!

In 1760 the Negro was ruled out of the militia establishment upon a condition. The law provided against the enlistment of any "young man under the age of twenty-one years, or any slaves who are so for terms of life, or apprentices," without leave of their masters. This was the mildest prohibition against the entrance of the slave into the militia service in any of the colonies. There is nothing said about the employment of the free Negroes in this service; and it is fair to suppose, in view of the mild character of the laws, that they were not excluded. In settlements where the German and Quaker elements predominated, the Negro found that his "lines had fallen unto him in pleasant places, and that he had a goodly heritage." In the coast towns, and in the great centres of population, the white people were of a poorer class. Many were adventurers, cruel and unscrupulous in their methods. The speed with which the people sought to obtain a competency wore the finer edges of their feeling to the coarse grain of selfishness; and they not only drew themselves up into the miserable rags of their own selfish aggrandizements as far as all competitors were concerned, but regarded slavery with imperturbable complacency.

In 1738 the population of the Jerseys was, whites, 43,388; blacks, 3,981. In 1745 the whites numbered 56,797, and the blacks, 4,606.[481]

FOOTNOTES:

[475] It is unfortunate that there is no good history of New Jersey. The records of the Historical Society of that State are not conveniently printed, nor valuable in colonial data.Return to passage

[476] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 283.Return to passage

[477] The following were the instructions his lordship received, concerning the treatment of Negro slaves: "You shall endeavour to get a law past for the restraining of any inhuman severity, which by ill masters or overseers may be used towards their Christian servants and their slaves, and that provision be made therein that the wilfull killing of Indians and negroes may be punished with death, and that a fit penalty be emposed for the maiming of them."--Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 280, note.Return to passage

[478] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 284.Return to passage

[479] Hurd, vol. i. p. 285.Return to passage

[480] Hurd, vol. i. p 285.Return to passage

[481] American Annals, vol. ii. pp. 127, 143.Return to passage

XXI. THE COLONY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

1665-1775.

THE CAROLINAS RECEIVE TWO DIFFERENT CHARTERS FROM THE CROWN OF GREAT BRITAIN.--ERA OF SLAVERY LEGISLATION.--LAW ESTABLISHING SLAVERY.--THE SLAVE POPULATION OF THIS PROVINCE REGARDED AS CHATTEL PROPERTY.--TRIAL OF SLAVES.--INCREASE OF SLAVE POPULATION.--THE INCREASE IN THE RICE TRADE.--SEVERE LAWS REGULATING THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CONDUCT OF SLAVE.--PUNISHMENT OF SLAVES FOR RUNNING AWAY.--THE LIFE OF SLAVES REGARDED AS OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE BY THE VIOLENT MASTER CLASS.--AN ACT EMPOWERING TWO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE TO INVESTIGATE TREATMENT OF SLAVES.--AN ACT PROHIBITING THE OVERWORKING OF SLAVES.--SLAVE-MARKET AT CHARLESTON.--INSURRECTION.--A LAW AUTHORIZING THE CARRYING OF FIRE-ARMS AMONG THE WHITES.--THE ENLISTMENT OF SLAVES TO SERVE IN TIME OF ALARM.--NEGROES ADMITTED TO THE MILITIA SERVICE.--COMPENSATION TO MASTERS FOR THE LOSS OF SLAVES KILLED BY THE ENEMY OR WHO DESERT.--FEW SLAVES MANUMITTED.--FROM 1754-1776 LITTLE LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.--THREATENING WAR BETWEEN ENGLAND AND HER PROVINCIAL DEPENDENCIES.--THE EFFECT UPON PUBLIC SENTIMENT.

The Carolinas received two different charters from the crown of Great Britain. The first was witnessed by the king at Westminster, March 24, 1663; the second, June 30, 1665. The last charter was surrendered to the king by seven of the eight proprietors on the 25th July, 1729. The government became regal; and the Province was immediately divided into North and South Carolina by an order of the British Council, and the boundaries between the two governments fixed.

There were Negro slaves in the Carolinas from the earliest days of their existence. The era of slavery legislation began about the year 1690. The first Act for the "Better Ordering of Slaves" was "read three times and passed, and ratified in open Parliament, the seventh day of February, Anno Domini, 1690." It bore the signatures of Seth Sothell, G. Muschamp, John Beresford, and John Harris. It contained fifteen articles of the severest character. On the 7th of June, 1712, the first positive law establishing slavery passed, and was signed.[482] The entire Act embraced thirty-five sections. Section one is quoted in full because of the interest that centres in it in connection with the problem of slavery legislation in the colonies.

"1. Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency, William, Lord Craven, Palatine, and the rest of the true and absolute Lords and Proprietors of this Province, by and with the advice and consent of the rest of the members of the General Assembly, now met at Charlestown, for the South-west part of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negroes, mulatoes, mustizoes or Indians, which at any time heretofore have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought and sold for slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they, and their children, are hereby made and declared slaves, to all intents and purposes; excepting all such negroes, mulatoes, mustizoes or Indians, which heretofore have been, or hereafter shall be, for some particular merit, made and declared free, either by the Governor and council of this Province, pursuant to any Act or law of this Province, or by their respective owners or masters; and also, excepting all such negroes, mulatoes, mustizoes or Indians, as can prove they ought not to be sold for slaves. And in case any negro, mulatoe, mustizoe or Indian, doth lay claim to his or her freedom upon all or any of the said accounts, the same shall be finally heard and determined by the Governor and council of this Province."[483]

The above section was re-enacted into another law, containing forty-three sections, passed on the 23d of February, 1722. Virginia declared that children should follow the condition of their mothers, but never passed a law in any respect like unto this most remarkable Act. South Carolina has the unenviable reputation of being the only colony in North America where by positive statute the Negro was doomed to perpetual bondage.[484] On the 10th of May, 1740, an act regulating slaves, containing fifty sections, recites:--

"Whereas, in his Majesty's plantations in America, slavery his been introduced and allowed, and the people commonly called negroes, Indians, mulattoes and mustizoes, have been deemed absolute slaves, and the subjects of property in the hands of particular persons, the extent of whose power over such slaves ought to be settled and limited by positive laws, so that the slave may be kept in due subjection and obedience, and the owners and other persons having the care and government of slaves may be restrained from exercising too great rigour and cruelty over them, and that the public peace and order of this Province may be preserved: We pray your most sacred Majesty that it may be enacted."[485]

The first section of this Act was made more elaborate than any other law previously passed. It bore all the marks of ripe scholarship and profound law learning. The first section is produced here:--

"1. And be it enacted, by the honorable William Bull, Esquire, Lieutenant Governor and Commander-in-chief, by and with the advice and consent of his Majesty's honorable Council, and the Commons House of Assembly of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negroes and Indians, (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes and mustizoes, who are now free, excepted,) mulattoes or mustizoes who now are, or shall hereafter be, in this Province, and all their issue and offspring, born or to be born, shall be, and they are hereby declared to be, and remain forever hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother, and shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever; provided always, that if any negro, Indian, mulatto or mustizo, shall claim his or her freedom, it shall and may be lawful for such negro, Indian, mulatto or mustizo, or any person or persons whatsoever, on his or her behalf, to apply to the justices of his Majesty's court of common pleas, by petition or motion, either during the sitting of the said court, or before any of the justices of the same court, at any time in the vacation; and the said court, or any of the justices thereof, shall, and they are hereby fully impowered to, admit any person so applying to be guardian for any negro, Indian, mulatto or mustizo, claiming his, her or their freedom; and such guardians shall be enabled, entitled and capable in law, to bring an action of trespass in the nature of ravishment of ward, against any person who shall claim property in, or who shall be in possession of, any such negro, Indian, mulatto or mustizo; and the defendant shall and may plead the general issue on such action brought, and the special matter may and shall be given in evidence, and upon a general or special verdict found, judgment shall be given according to the very right of the cause, without having any regard to any defect in the proceedings, either in form or substance; and if judgment shall be given for the plaintiff, a special entry shall be made, declaring that the ward of the plaintiff is free, and the jury shall assess damages which the plaintiff's ward hath sustained, and the court shall give judgment, and award execution, against the defendant for such damage, with full costs of suit; but in case judgment shall be given for the defendant, the said court is hereby fully impowered to inflict such corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb, on the ward of the plaintiff, as they, in their discretion, shall think fit; provided always, that in any action or suit to be brought in pursuance of the direction of this Act, the burthen of the proof shall lay on the plaintiff, and it shall be always presumed that every negro, Indian, mulatto and mustizo, is a slave, unless the contrary can be made appear, the Indians in amity with this government excepted, in which case the burthen of the proof shall lye on the defendant; provided also, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to hinder or restrain any other court of law or equity in this Province, from determining the property of slaves, or their right of freedom, which now have cognizance or jurisdiction of the same, when the same shall happen to come in judgment before such courts, or any of them, always taking this Act for their direction therein."[486]

The entire slave population of this Province was regarded as chattel property, absolutely. They could be seized in execution as in the case of other property, but not, however, if there were other chattels available. In case of "burglary, robbery, burning of houses, killing or stealing of any meat or other cattle, or other petty injuries, as maiming one of the other, stealing of fowls, provisions, or such like trespass or injuries," a justice of the peace was to be informed. He issued a warrant for the arrest of the offender or offenders, and summoned all competent witnesses. After examination, if found guilty, the offender or offenders were committed to jail. The justice then notified the justice next to him to be associated with him in the trial. He had the authority to fix the day and hour of the trial, to summon witness, and "three discreet and sufficient freeholders." The justices then swore the "freeholders," and, after they had tried the case, had the authority to pronounce the sentence of death, "or such other punishment" as they felt meet to fix. "The solemnity of a jury" was never accorded to slaves. "Three freeholders" could dispose of human life in such cases, and no one could hinder.[487] The confession of the accused slave, and the testimony of another slave, were "held for good and convincing evidence in all petty larcenies or trespasses not exceeding forty shillings." In the case of a Negro on trial for his life, "the oath of Christian evidence" was required, or the "positive evidence of two Negroes or slaves," in order to convict.

The increase of slaves was almost phenomenal. The rice-trade had grown to enormous proportions. The physical obstruction gave away rapidly before the incessant and stupendous efforts of Negro laborers. The colonists held out most flattering inducements to Englishmen to emigrate into the Province. The home government applauded the zeal and executive abilities of the local authorities. Attention was called to the necessity of legislation for the government of the vast Negro population in the colony. The code of South Carolina was without an example among the civilized governments of modern times. It was unlawful for any free person to inhabit or trade with Negroes.[488] Slaves could not leave the plantation on which they were owned, except in livery, or armed with a pass, signed by their master, containing the name of the possessor. For a violation of this regulation they were whipped on the naked back. No man was allowed to conduct a "plantation, cow-pen or stock," that shall be six miles distant from his usual place of abode, and wherein six Negroes were employed, without one or more white persons were residing on the place.[489] Negro slaves found on another plantation than the one to which they belonged, "on the Lord's Day, fast days, or holy-days," even though they could produce passes, were seized and whipped. If a slave were found "keeping any horse, horses, or neat cattle," any white man, by warrant, could seize the animals, and sell them through the church-wardens; and the money arising from such sale was devoted to the poor of the parish in which said presumptuous slaves resided. If more than seven slaves were found travelling on the highway, except accompanied by a white man, it was lawful for any white man to apprehend each and every one of such slaves, and administer twenty lashes upon their bare back. No slave was allowed to hire out his time. Some owners of slaves were poor, and, their slaves being trusty and industrious, permitted them to go out and get whatever work they could, with the understanding that the master was to have the wages. An Act was passed in 1735, forbidding such transactions, and fining the persons who hired slaves who had no written certificate from their masters setting forth the terms upon which the work was to be done. No slave could hire a house or plantation. No amount of industry could make him an exception to the general rule. If he toiled faithfully for years, amassed a fortune for his master, earned quite a competence for himself during the odd moments he caught from a busy life, and then, with acknowledged character and business tact, he sought to hire a plantation or buy a house, the law came in, and pronounced it a misdemeanor, for which both purchaser and seller had to pay in fines, stripes, and imprisonment. A slave could not keep in his own name, or that of his master, any kind of a house of entertainment. He was even prohibited by law from selling corn or rice in the Province. The penalty was a fine of forty shillings, and the forfeiture of the articles for sale. They could not keep a boat or canoe.

The cruelties of the code are without a parallel, as applied to the correction of Negro slaves.

"If any negro or Indian slave [says the act of Feb. 7, 1690] shall offer any violence, by stricking or the like, to any white person, he shall for the first offence be severely whipped by the constable, by order of any justice of peace; and for the second offence, by like order, shall be severely whipped, his or her nose slit, and face burnt in some place; and for the third offence, to be left to two justices and three sufficient freeholders, to inflict death, or any other punishment, according to their discretion."

As the penalties for the smallest breach of the slave-code grew more severe, the slaves grew more restless and agitated. Sometimes under great fear they would run away for a short time, in the hope that their irate masters would relent. But this, instead of helping, hindered and injured the cause of the slaves. Angered at the conduct of their slaves, the master element, having their representatives on the floor of the Assembly, secured the passage of the following brutal law:--

"That every slave of above sixteen years of age, that shall run away from his master, mistress or overseer, and shall so continue for the space of twenty days at one time, shall, by his master, mistress, overseer or head of the family's procurement, for the first offence, be publicly and severely whipped, not exceeding forty lashes; and in case the master, mistress, overseer, or head of the family, shall neglect to inflict such punishment of whipping, upon any negro or slave that shall so run away, for the space of ten days, upon complaint made thereof, within one month, by any person whatsoever, to any justice of the peace, the said justice of the peace shall, by his warrant directed to the constable, order the said negro or slave to be publicly and severely whipped, the charges of such whipping, not exceeding twenty shillings, to be borne by the person neglecting to have such runaway negro whipped, as before directed by this Act. And in case such negro or slave shall run away a second time, and shall so continue for the space of twenty days, he or she, so offending, shall be branded with the letter R, on the right cheek. And in case the master, mistress, overseer, or head of the family, shall neglect to inflict the punishment upon such slave running away the second time, the person so neglecting shall forfeit the sum of ten pounds, and upon any complaint made by any person, within one month, to any justice of the peace, of the neglect of so punishing any slave for running away the second time, such justice shall order the constable to inflict the same punishment upon such slave, or cause the same to be done, the charges thereof, not exceeding thirty shillings, to be borne by the person neglecting to have the punishment inflicted. And in case such negro or slave shall run away the third time, and shall so continue for the space of thirty days, he or she, so offending, for the third offence, shall be severely whipped, not exceeding forty lashes, and shall have one of his ears cut off; and in case the master, mistress, overseer or head of the family, shall neglect to inflict the punishment upon such slave running away the third time, the person so neglecting shall forfeit the sum of twenty pounds, and upon any complaint made by any person, within two months, to any justice of the peace, of the neglect of the so punishing any slave for running away the third time, the said justice shall order the constable to inflict the same punishment upon such slave, or cause the same to be done, the charges thereof, not exceeding forty shillings, to be borne by the person neglecting to have the punishment inflicted. And in case such male negro or slave shall run away the fourth time, and shall so continue for the space of thirty days, he, so offending, for the fourth offence, by order or procurement of the master, mistress, overseer or head of the family, shall be gelt; and in case the negro or slave that shall be gelt, shall die, by reason of his gelding, and without any neglect of the person that shall order the same, the owner of the negro or slave so dying, shall be paid for him, out of the public treasury. And if a female slave shall run away the fourth time, then she shall, by order of her master, mistress or overseer, be severely whipped, and be branded on the left cheek with the letter R, and her left ear cut off. And if the owner, if in this Province, or in case of his absence, if his agent, factor or attorney, that hath the charge of the negro or slave, by this Act required to be gelt, whipped, branded and the ear cut off, for the fourth time of running away, shall neglect to have the same done and executed, accordingly as the same is ordered by this Act, for the space of twenty days after such slave is in his or their custody, that then such owner shall lose his property to the said slave, to him or them that will sue for the same, by information, at any time within six months, in the court of common pleas in this Province. And every person who shall so recover a slave by information, for the reasons aforesaid, shall, within twenty days after such recovery, inflict such punishment upon such slave as his former owner or head of a family ought to have done, and for neglect of which he lost his property to the said slave, or for neglect thereof shall forfeit fifty pounds; and in case any negro slave so recovered by information, and gelt, shall die, in such case, the slave so dying shall not be paid for out of the public treasury. And in case any negro or slave shall run away the fifth time, and shall so continue by the space of thirty days at one time, such slave shall be tried before two justices of the peace and three freeholders, as before directed by this Act in case of murder, and being by them declared guilty of the offence, it shall be lawful for them to order the cord of one of the slave's legs to be cut off above the heel, or else to pronounce sentence of death upon the slave, at the discretion of the said justices; and any judgment given after the first offence, shall be sufficient conviction to bring the offenders within the penalty for the second offence; and after the second, within the penalty of the third; and so for the inflicting the rest of the punishments."[490]

If any slave attempted to run away from his or her master, and go out of the Province, he or she could be tried before two justices and three freeholders, and sentenced to suffer a most cruel death. If it could be proved that any Negro, free or slave, had endeavored to persuade or entice any other Negro to run off out of the Province, upon conviction he was punished with forty lashes, and branded on the forehead with a red hot iron, "that the mark thereof may remain." If a white man met a slave, and demanded of him to show his ticket, and the slave refused, the law empowered the white man "to beat, maim, or assault; and if such Negro or slave" could not "be taken, to kill him," if he would not "shew his ticket."

The cruel and barbarous code of the slave-power in South Carolina produced, in course of time, a re-action in the opposite direction. The large latitude that the law gave to white people in their dealings with the hapless slaves made them careless and extravagant in the use of their authority. It educated them into a brood of tyrants. They did not care any more for the life of a Negro slave than for the crawling worm in their path. Many white men who owned no slaves poured forth their wrathful invectives and cruel blows upon the heads of innocent Negroes with the slightest pretext. They pushed, jostled, crowded, and kicked the Negro on every occasion. The young whites early took their lessons in abusing God's poor and helpless children; while an overseer was prized more for his brutal powers--to curse, beat, and torture--than for any ability he chanced to possess for business management. The press and pulpit had contemplated this state of affairs until they, too, were the willing abettors in the most cruel system of bondage that history has recorded. But no man wants his horse driven to death, if it is a beast. No one cares to have every man that passes kick his dog, even if it is not the best dog in the community. It is his dog, and that makes all the difference in the world. The men who did the most cruel things to the slaves they found in their daily path were, as a rule, without slaves or any other kind of property. They used their authority unsparingly. Common-sense taught the planters that better treatment of the slaves meant better work, and increased profits for themselves. A small value was finally placed upon a slave's life,--fifty pounds. Fifty pounds paid into the public treasury by a man who, "of wantonness, or only of bloody-mindedness, or cruel intention," had killed "a negro or other slave of his own," was enough to appease the public mind, and atone for a cold-blooded murder! If he killed another man's slave, the law demanded that he pay fifty pounds current money into the public treasury, and the full price of the slave to the owner, but was "not to be liable to any other punishment or forfeiture for the same."[491] The law just referred to, passed in 1712, was re-enacted in 1722. One change was made in it: i.e., if a white servant, having no property, killed a slave, three justices could bind him over to the master whose slave he killed to serve him for five years. This law had a wholesome effect upon irresponsible white men, who often presumed upon their nationality, having neither brains, money, nor social standing, to punish slaves.

In 1740, May 10, the following Act became a law, showing that there had been a wonderful change in public sentiment rejecting the treatment of slaves:--

"XXXVII. And whereas, cruelty is not only highly unbecoming those who profess themselves christians but is odious in the eyes of all men who have any sense of virtue or humanity; therefore, to restrain and prevent barbarity being exercised towards slaves, Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any person or persons whosoever, shall wilfully murder his own slave, or the slave of any other person every such person shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay the sum of seven hundred pounds current money, and shall be rendered, and is hereby declared altogether and forever incapable of holding, exercising, enjoying or receiving the profits of any office, place or employment, civil or military, within this Province: And in case any such person shall not be able to pay the penalty and forfeitures hereby inflicted and imposed, every such person shall be sent to any of the frontier garrisons of this Province, or committed to the work house in Charlestown, there to remain for the space of seven years, and to serve or to be kept at hard labor. And in case the slave murdered shall be the property of any other person than the offender, the pay usually allowed by the public to the soldiers of such garrison, or the profits of the labor of the offender, if committed to the work house in Charlestown shall be paid to the owner of the slave murdered. And if any person shall, on a sudden heat of passion, or by undue correction, kill his own slave, or the slave of any other person, he shall forfeit the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds, current money. And in case any person or persons shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horse-whip, cow-skin, switch or small stick or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money."[492]

It may be said truthfully that the slaves in the colony of South Carolina were accorded treatment as good as that bestowed upon horses, in 1750. But their social condition was most deplorable. The law positively forbid the instruction of slaves, and the penalty was "one hundred pounds current money." For a few years Saturday afternoon had been allowed them as a day of recreation, but as early as 1690 it was forbidden by statute. In the same year an Act was passed declaring that slaves should "have convenient clothes, once every year; and that no slave" should "be free by becoming a christian,[493] but as to payments of debts" were "deemed and taken as all other goods and chattels." Their houses were searched every fortnight "for runaway slaves" and "stolen goods." Druggists were not allowed to employ a Negro to handle medicines, upon pain of forfeiting twenty pounds current money for every such offence. Negroes were not allowed to practise medicine, nor administer drugs of any kind, except by the direction of some white person. Any gathering of Negroes could be broken up at the discretion of a justice living in the district where the meeting was in session.

Poor clothing and insufficient food bred wide-spread discontent among the slaves, and attracted public attention.[494] Many masters endeavored to get on as cheaply as possible in providing for their slaves. In 1732 the Legislature passed an Act empowering two justices of the peace to inquire as to the treatment of slaves on the several plantations; and if any master neglected his slaves in food and raiment, he was liable to a fine of not more than fifty shillings. In May, 1740, an Act was passed requiring masters to see to it that their slaves were not overworked. The time set for them to work, was "from the 25th day of March to the 25th day of September," not "more than fifteen hours in four-and-twenty;" and "from the 25th day of September to the 25th day of March," not "more than fourteen hours in four-and-twenty."

The history of the impost-tax on slaves imported into the Province of South Carolina is the history of organized greed, ambition, and extortion. Many were the gold sovereigns that were turned into the official coffers at Charleston! With a magnificent harbor, and a genial climate, no city in the South could rival it as a slave-market. With an abundant supply from without, and a steady demand from within, the officials at Charleston felt assured that high impost-duties could not interfere with the slave-trade; while the city would be a great gainer by the traffic, both mediately and immediately.

Sudden and destructive insurrections were the safety-valves to the institution of slavery. A race long and cruelly enslaved may endure the yoke patiently for a season: but like the sudden gathering of the summer clouds, the pelting rain, the vivid, blinding lightning, the deep, hoarse thundering, it will assert itself some day; and then it is indeed a day of judgment to the task-masters! The Negroes in South Carolina endured a most cruel treatment for a long time; and, when "the day of their wrath" came, they scarcely knew it themselves, much less the whites. Florida was in the possession of the Spaniards. Its governor had sent out spies into Georgia and South Carolina, who held out very flattering inducements to the Negroes to desert their masters and go to Florida. Moreover, there was a Negro regiment in the Spanish service, whose officers were from their own race. Many slaves had made good their escape, and joined this regiment. It was allowed the same uniform and pay as the Spanish soldiers had. The colony of South Carolina was fearing an enemy from without, while behold their worst enemy was at their doors! In 1740 some Negroes assembled themselves together at a town called Stone, and made an attack upon two young men, who were guarding a warehouse, and killed them. They seized the arms and ammunition, effected an organization by electing one of their number captain; and, with boisterous drums and flying banners, they marched off "like a disciplined company." They entered the house of one Mr. Godfrey, slew him, his wife, and child, and then fired his dwelling. They next took up their march towards Jacksonburgh, and plundered and burnt the houses of Sacheveral, Nash, Spry, and others. They killed all the white people they found, and recruited their ranks from the Negroes they met. Gov. Bull was "returning to Charleston from the southward, met them, and, observing them armed, quickly rode out of their way."[495] In a march of twelve miles, they had wrought a work of great destruction. News reached Wiltown, and the militia were called out. The Negro insurrectionists were intoxicated with their triumph, and drunk from rum they had taken from the houses they had plundered. They halted in an open field to sing and dance; and, during their hilarity, Capt. Bee, at the head of the troops of the district, fell upon them, and, having killed several, captured all who did not make their escape in the woods.

The Province was thrown into intense excitement. The Legislature called attention to the insurrection,[496] and declared legal some very questionable and summary acts. In 1743 the people had not recovered from the fright they received from the insurrection. On the 7th of May, 1743, an Act was passed requiring every white male inhabitant, who resorted "to any church or any other public place of divine worship, within" the Province to "carry with him a gun or a pair of horse pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gun-powder and ball," upon pain of paying "twenty shillings."

As there was a law against teaching slaves to read and write, there were no educated preachers. If a Negro desired to preach to his fellow-slaves, he had to secure written permission from his master. While Negroes were sometimes baptized into the communion of the Church,--usually the Episcopal Church,--they were allowed only in the gallery, or organ-loft, of white congregations, in small numbers. No clergyman ventured to break unto this benighted people the bread of life. They were abandoned to the superstitions and religious fanaticisms incident to their condition.

In 1704 an Act was passed "for raising and enlisting such slaves as shalt be thought serviceable to this Province in time of Alarms." It required, within thirty days after the publication of the Act, that the commanders of military organizations throughout the Province should appoint "five freeholders," "sober and discreet men," who were to make a complete list of all the able-bodied slaves in their respective districts. Three of them were competent to decide upon the qualifications of a slave. After the completion of the list, the freeholders mentioned above notified the owners to appear before them upon a certain day, and show cause why their slaves should not be chosen for the service of the colony. The slaves were then enlisted, and their masters charged with the duty of arming them "with a serviceable lance, hatchet or gun, with sufficient amunition and hatchets, according to the conveniency of the said owners, to appear under the colours of the respective captains, in their several divisions, throughout" the Province, for the performance of such "public service" as required. If an owner refused to equip or permit his slave to respond to alarms, he was fined five pounds for each neglect, which was to be paid to the captain of the company to which the slave belonged. If a slave were killed by the enemy "in the line of duty," the owner of such slave was paid out of the public treasury such sum of money as three freeholders, under oath, should award. The Negroes did admirably; and four years later, on the 24th of April, 1708, the Legislature re-enacted the bill making them militia-men. The last Act contained ten sections, and bears evidence of the pleasure the whites took in the employment of Negroes as their defenders. If a Negro were taken prisoner by the enemy, and effected his escape back into the Province, he was emancipated. And if a Negro captured and killed an enemy, he was emancipated, but if wounded himself, was set free at the public expense. If he deserted to the enemy, his master was paid for his loss.

Few slaves were manumitted. The law required that masters who emancipated their slaves should make provisions for transporting them out of the Province. If they were found in the Province twelve months after they were set free, the manumission was considered void, except approved by the Legislature.

From 1754 till 1776 there was little legislation on the subject of slavery. The pressure from without made men conservative about slavery, and radical on the question of the rights and liberties of the colonies. The threatening war between England and her provincial dependencies made men humane and patriotic; and during these years of anxiety and excitement, the weary slaves breathed a better atmosphere, and enjoyed the rare sensation of confidence and benevolence.

FOOTNOTES:

[482] An eminent lawyer, chief justice of the Supreme Court of the State of ----, and a warm personal friend of mine, recently said to me, during an afternoon stroll, that he never knew that slavery was ever established by statute in any of the British colonies in North America.Return to passage

[483] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. p. 352.Return to passage

[484] Virginia made slavery statutory as did other colonies, but we have no statute so explicit as the above. But slavery was slavery in all the colonies, cruel and hurtful.Return to passage

[485] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. p. 397.Return to passage

[486] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. pp. 397, 398.Return to passage

[487] Ibid., vol. vii. pp. 343, 344.Return to passage

[488] This Act, passed on the 16th of March, 1696, was made "perpetual" on the 12th of December, 1712. It remained throughout the entire period. See Statutes of S.C., vol. ii, p. 598.Return to passage

[489] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. p. 363.Return to passage

[490] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. pp. 359, 360.Return to passage

[491] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. 363.Return to passage

[492] Ibid., vol vii. pp. 410. 411.Return to passage

[493] The following is the Act of the 7th of June, 1690. "XXXIV Since charity, and the christian religion, which we profess, obliges us to wish well to the souls of all men, and that religion may not be made a pretence to alter any man's property and right, and that no person may neglect to baptize their negroes or slaves, or suffer them to be baptized, for fear that thereby they should be manumitted and set free, Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall be, and is hereby declared, lawful for any negro or Indian slave, or any other slave or slaves whatsoever, to receive and profess the christian faith, and be thereinto baptized; but that notwithstanding such slave or slaves shall receive and profess the Christian religion, and be baptized, he or they shall not thereby be manumitted or set free, or his or their owner, master or mistress lose his or their civil right, property, and authority over such slave or slaves, but that the slave or slaves, with respect to his servitude shall remain and continue in the same state and condition that he or they was in before the making of this act."--Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. pp 364, 365.Return to passage

[494] In 1740 an Act was passed requiring masters to provide "sufficient clothing" for their slaves.Return to passage

[495] Hist. S.C. and Georgia, vol. ii. p. 73.Return to passage

[496] Statutes of S.C., vol. vii. p. 416.Return to passage