Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts

Front matter

NOTES

ON THE

HISTORY OF SLAVERY

Chapter 1

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.

I.

WE find the earliet records of the hitory of lavery in Maachuetts at the period of the Pequod War—a few years after the Puritan ettlement of the colony. Prior to that time an occaional offender againt the laws was punihed by being old into lavery or adjudged to ervitude; but the intitution firt appears clearly and ditinctly in the enlaving of Indians captured in war. We may hereafter add a ketch of the theories which were held to jutify the bondage of the heathen, but at preent limit ourelves to the collection of facts to illutrate our general ubject. And at the outet we deire to ay that in this hitory there is nothing to comfort pro-lavery men anywhere. The tains which lavery has left on the proud ecutcheon even of Maachuetts, are quite as ignificant of its hideous character as the atanic defiance of God and Humanity which accompanied the laying of the corner-tone of the Slave-holders' Confederacy.

The tory of the extermination of the Pequods is well known. It was that warlike tribe who, ih the early months of "that fatal year," 1637, were reported by Governor Winlow to Winthrop as follows:

“‘The Pecoats follow their fihing & planting as if they had no enemies. Their women of eteem & children are gone to Long Iland with a trong gard at Pecoat. They proee there you {lshall finde them, and as they were there borne & bred, there their bones hall be buried, & rott in depight of the Englih. But if the Lord be on our ide, their braggs will soon fall." M. H.S. Coll. iv., vi., 164.

The extracts which follow explain themelves and hardly require comment.

Roger Williams, writing from Providence [in June 1637] to John Winthrop, ays: "I undertand it would be very gratefvll to our neighbours that uch Pequts as fall to them be not enlaved, like thoe which are taken in warr; but (as they ay is their generall cutome) be vfed kindly, haue howes & goods & fields given them: becaue they voluntarily chooe to come in to them, & if not receaved will [go] to the enemie or turne wild Irih themelues: but of this more as I hall vnderftand. …" M. H. S. Coll., ic., vi 195.

Again [probably in July, 1637]: "It having againe pleaed the Mot High to put into your hands another mierable droue of Adams degenerate eede, & our brethren by nature, I am bold (if I may not offend in it) to requet the keeping & bringing vp of one of the children. I haue fixed mine eye on this little one with the red about his neck, but I will not be peremptory in my choice, but will ret in your loving pleaure for him or any," &c. M. H. S. Coll., iv., vi., 195–6.

Again [probably 18th September, 1637]: "Sir, concerning captiues (pardon my wonted boldnes) the Scripture is full of mysterie & the Old Tetament of types.

“If they have deserued death 'tis sinn to spare:

"If they haue not deserued death then what punihments? Whether perpetuall laverie.

"I doubt not but the enemie may lawfully be weaknd & despoild of all comfort of wife & children &c., but I beeech you well weigh it after a due time of trayning vp to labour & retraint, they ought not to be et free: a so as without danger of adioyning to the enemie." M. H. S. Coll., iv., vi., 214.

Later in the fame year [Nov. 1637] Roger Williams, who had promied certain fugitive laves to intercede for them, "to write that they might be vfed kindly"—fulfilled his promie in a letter to Winthrop, in which, after tating their complaints of ill usage, &c., he adds:

"My humble deire is that all that haue thee poor wretches might be exhorted as to walke wiely & iuftly towards them, so to make mercy eminent, for in that attribute the Father of mercy mot hines to Adams miserable ofspring." M. H. S. Coll., iv., vi., 218, 219.

Hugh Peter writes to John Winthrop from Salem (in 1637): "Mr. Endecot and my elfe alute you in the Lord Jeus, etc. Wee haue heard of a diuidence of women and children in the bay and would bee glad of a hare, viz.: a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good. I wrote to you for ome boyes for Bermudas, which I thinke is coniderable." M. H. S. Coll., iv., vi., 95.

In this application of Hugh Peter we have a glimpse of the beginning of the Colonial Slave-Trade. He wanted "ome boyes for the Bermudas," which he thought was "coniderable."

It would eem to indicate that this dipoition of captive Indian boys was in accordance with custom and previous practice of the authorities. At any rate, it is certain that in the Pequod War they took many prioners. Some of thee, who had been "diposed of to particular perons in the country," Winthrop, i., 232, ran away, and being brought in again were "branded on the houlder," ib. In July, 1637, Winthrop ays, "We had now lain and taken, in all, about even hundred. We ent fifteen of the boys and two women to Bermuda, by Mr. Peirce; but he, miing it, carried them to Providence Ile," Winthrop, i., 234. The learned editor of Winthrop's Journal, referring to the fact that this proceeding in that day was probably jutified by reference to the practice or intitution of the Jews, very quaintly oberves, "Yet that cruel people never ent prioners o far." Ib., note.

Governor Winthrop, writing to Governor Bradford of Plymouth, 28th July, 1637, an account of their ucces againt the Pequods—"ye Lords greate mercies towards us, in our prevailing againt his & our enimies"—says:

"The prioners were devided, ome to thoe of ye river [the Connecticut Colony] and the ret to us. Of thee we end the male children to Bermuda, by Mr. William Peirce, & ye women & maid children are dipoed aboute in ye tounes. Ther have now been laine and taken, in all, aboute 700." M. H. S. Coll., iv., iii, 360. Compare the order for "dipoing of ye Indian quaws," in Mass. Records, i., 201.

Bradford's note to the letter quoted above, ays of their being ent to Bermuda: "But ye were carried to ye Wet Indeas."

Hubbard, the contemporary hitorian of the Indian Wars, ays of thee captives, "Of thoe who were not o deperate or ullen to ell their lives for nothing, but yielded in time, the male Children were ent to the Bermudas, of the females ome were ditributed to the Englith Towns; ome were dipofed of among the other Indians, to whom they were deadly enemies, as well as to ourelves." Narrative, 1677, p. 130.

A ubequent entry in Winthrop's Journal gives us another glimpe of the ubject, Feb. 26, 1638.

"Mr. Peirce, in the Salem hip, the Deire, returned from the Wet Indies after even months. He had been at Providence, and brought ome cotton, and tobacco, and negroes, etc., from thence, and alt from Tertugos;" Winthrop, i. 254. He adds to this account that "Dry fih and trong liquors are the only commodities for thoe parts. He met there two men-of-war, et forth by the lords, etc., of Providence with letters of mart, who had taken divers prizes from the Spaniard and many negroes." Long afterwards Dr. Belknap aid of the lave-trade, that the rum ditilled in Maachuetts was "the mainpring of this traffick." M. H. S. Coll., i., iv., 197.

Joelyn ays, that "they sent the male children of the Pequets to the Bermudus." 258. M. H. S. Coll., iv., iii. 360.

This ingle cargo of women and children was probably not the only one ent, for the Company of Providence Iland, in replying from London in 1638, July 3, to letters from the authorities in the iland, direct pecial care to be taken of the "Cannibal negroes brought from New England." Sainbury's Calendar, 1574–1660, 278.

And in 1639, when the Company feared that the number of the negroes might become too great to be managed, the authorities thought they might be old and ent to New England or Virginia. Ib., 296.

The hip "Deire" was a veel of one hundred and twenty tons, built at Marblehead in 1636, one of the earliet built in the Colony. Winthrop, i., 193.

In the Pequot War, ome of the Narraganetts joined the Englih in its proecution, and received a part of the prioners as laves, for their ervices. Miantunnomoh received eighty, Ninigret was to have twenty. Mather ays of the principal engagement, "the captives that were taken were about one hundred and eighty, which were divided between the two Colonyes, and they intended to keep them as ervants, but they could not endure the Yoke, for few of them continued any coniderable time with their masters." Drake, 122, 146. Mather's Relation, quoted by Drake, 39. See alo Hartford Treaty, Sept. 21, 1638, in Drake, 125. Drake's Mather, 150, 151.

Captain Stoughton, who aited in the work of exterminating the Pequots, after his arrival in the enemy's country, wrote to the Governor of Maachuetts [Winthrop] as follows: "By this pinnace, you hall receive forty-eight or fifty women and children. … Concerning which, there is one, I formerly mentioned, that is the fairet and largest that I aw amongt them, to whom I have given a coate to cloathe her. It is my deire to have her for a ervant, if it may tand with your good liking, ele not. There is a little quaw that Steward Culacut desireth, to whom he hath given a coate. Lieut. Davenport alo deireth one, to wit, a mall one, that hath three trokes upon her tomach, thus: — ||| +. He deireth her, if it will tand with your liking. Soomon, the Indian, deireth a young little quaw, which I know not." MS. Letter in Mas. Archives, quoted by Drake, 171.

An early traveller in New England has preerved for us the record of one of the earliet, if not, indeed, the very firt attempt at breeding of laves in Amer The following paage from Joelyn's Account of Two Voyages to New England, publihed at London in 1664, will explain itelf:

"The Second of October, [1639] about 9 of the clock in the morning Mr. Mavericks Negro woman came to my chamber window, and in her own Countrey language and tune ang very loud and hrill, going out to her, he ued a great deal of repect towards me, and willingly would have expreed her grief in Englih; but I apprehended it by her countenance and deportment, whereupon I repaired to my hot, to learn of him the caue, and reolved to intreat him in her behalf, for that I undertood before, that he had been a Queen in her own Countrey, and oberved a very humble and dutiful garb ued towards her by another Negro who was her maid. Mr. Maverick was deirous to have a breed of Negroes, and therefore eeing he would not yield by peruaions to company with a Negro young man he had in his houe; he commanded him will'd he nill'd he to go to bed to her, which was no ooner done but he kickt him out again, this he took in high didain beyond her lavery, and this was the caue of her grief." Joelyn, 28.

Joelyn viited New England twice, and pent about ten years in this country, from 1638–39 and 1663 to 1671. In peaking of the people of Boton he mentions that the people "are well accommodated with ervants …. of thee ome are Englih, others Negroes." Ibid., 182.

Mr. Palfrey ays: "Before Winthrop's arrival there were two negro laves in Maachuetts, held by Mr. Maverick, on Noddle's Iland." Hitory of New England, II., 30, note. If there is any evidence to utain this tatement, it is certainly not in the authority to which he refers. On the contrary, the inference is irreitible from all the authorities together, that the negroes of Mr. Maverick were a portion of thoe imported in the firt colonial lave-hip, the Deire, of who{[lse voyage we have given the hitory. It is not to be uppofed that Mr. Maverick had waited ten years before taking the teps towards improving his tock of negroes, which are referred to by Joelyn. Ten years' lavery on Noddle's I{[lsland would have made the negro-queen more familiar with the Englih language, if not more compliant to the brutal cutoms of lavery.

It will be oberved that this firt entrance into the lave-trade was not a private, individual peculation. It was the enterprie of the authorities of the Colony. And on the 13th March, 1639, it was ordered by the General Court "that 3l 8s should be paid Leiftenant Davenport for the preent, for charge dibured for the flaves, which, when they have earned it, hee is to repay it back againe." The marginal note is, "Lieft. Davenport to keep ye laues." Mas. Rec., i., 253.

Emanuel Downing, a lawyer of the Inner Temple, London, who married Lucy Winthrop, iter of the elder Winthrop, came over to New England in 1638. The editors of the Winthrop papers ay of him, "There were few more active or efficient friends of the Maachuetts Colony during its earliet and mot critical period." His on was the famous Sir George Downing, Englih ambaador at the Hague.

In a letter to his brother-in-law, "probably written during the ummer of 1645," is a mot luminous illutration of the views of that day and generation on the subject of human lavery. He ays:

"A warr with the Narraganett is verie coniderable to this plantation, ffor I doubt whither yt be not ynne in vs, hauing power in our hands, to uffer them to maynteyne the worhip of the devill, which their paw wawes often doe; 2lie, if upon a Jut warre the Lord hould deliver them into our hands, we might eaily haue men, woemen and children enoughto exchange for Moores, which wilbe more gayneful pilladge for vs than wee conceive, for I doe not ee how wee can thrive vntill wee gett into a tock of slaves ufficient to doe all our buiines, for our children's children will hardly ee this great Continent filled with people, oe that our ervants will till deire freedom to plant for them elues, and not tay but for verie great wages. And I uppofe you know verie well how wee hall maynteyne 20 Moores cheaper than one Englihe ervant.

"The hips that hall bring Moores may come home laden with alt which may beare most of the chardge, if not all of yt. But I marvayle Conecticott hould any wayes haard a warre without your advie, which they cannot mayntayne without your helpe." M. H. S. Coll., iv., vi., 65.

Chapter 2

II.

We come now to the era of poitive legiflation on the ubject of human bondage in America, Mr. Hurd, the ablet writer on this ubject, ays: "The involuntary ervitude of Indians and negroes in the everal colonies originated under a law not promulgated by legilation, and reted upon prevalent views of univeral juriprudence, or the law of nations, upported by the expres or implied authority of the home Government." Law of Freedom and Bondage, § 216, i., 225.

Under this anction lavery may very properly be aid to have originated in all the colonies, but it was not long before it made its appearance on the tatute-book in Maachuetts. The firt tatute etablithing lavery in America is to be found in the famous Code of Fundamentals, or Body of Libertiss of the Massachusetts Colony in New-England—the firt code of laws of that colony, adopted in December, 1641. Thee liberties had been, after a long truggle between the magitrates and the people, extracted from the reluctant grap of the former. "The people had [1639] long deired a body of laws, and thought their condition very unafe, while o much power reted in the dicretion of magitrates." Winthrop, i., 322. Never were the demands of a free people eluded by their public ervants with more of the contortions as well as widom of the erpent. Compare Gray in M. H. S., iii., viii., 208.

The cantines of the materials for the particular hitory of this renowned code is uch as to forbid the attempt to trace with certainty to its origin the law in quetion. It is, however, obvious that it was made to provide for lavery as an exiting, subtantial fact, if not to retrain the application of thoe higher law doctrines, which the magitrates mut have ometimes found inconvenient in adminitration. The preamble to the Body of Liberties itelf might have been contrued into ome vague recognition of rights in individual members of ociety uperior to legilative power—although it was promulgated by the po]eors of the mot arbitrary authority in the then actual holders of legilative and executive power. Compare Hurd's Law of Freedom and Bondage, i., 198. Had they only learned to reaon as ome of the modern writers of Maachuetts hitory have done on this ubject, the poor Indians and Negroes of that day might have compelled additional legilation if they could not vindicate their rights to freedom in the general court. For the firt article of the Declaration of Rights in 1780, is only a new. edition of “the glittering and founding generalities” which prefaced the Body of Liberties in 1641. Under the latter, human lavery exited for nearly a century and a half without erious challenge, while under the former it is aid to have been abolihed by inference by a public opinion which till continued to tolerate the lave-trade.

But to the law and the tetimony. The ninety-firt article of the Body of Liberties appears as follows, under the head of

"Liberties of Forreiners and Strangers.

"91. There hall never be any bond laverie, villinage or captivitie amongt us unles it be lawfull captives taken in jut warres, and uch trangers as willingly elle themelves or are old to us. And thee hall have all the liberties and Chritian uages which the law of God etablithed in Iraell concerning uch perons doeth morally require. This exempts none from ervitude who hall be Judged thereto by Authoritie." M. H. S. Coll., iii., viii., 231.

Thee laws were not printed, but were publihed in manucript under the uperintendence of a committee in which Deputy-Governor Endicott was aociated with Mr. Downing and Mr. Hauthorne, and, Governor Winthrop ays, "etablifhed for three years, by that experience to have them fully amended and etablifhed to be perpetual." Mas, Records, i., 344, 346. Winthrop's Journal, ii., 55. By the ninety-eighth and lat ection of this code, it was decreed as follows:

"98. Latly becaue our dutie and deire is to do nothing uddainlie which fundamentally concerne us, we decree that thee rites and liberties, hall be Audably read and deliberately weighed at every Generall Court that hall be held, within three yeares next inueing, And uch of them as hall not be altered or repealed they hall tand o ratified, That no man hall infringe them without due punihment.

“And if any Generall Court within thee next thre yeares hall faile or forget to reade and conider them as aboveaid, The Governor and Deputy Governor for the time being, and every Aitant preent at uch Courts, hall forfeite 20 h. a man, and everie Deputie 10 h. a man for each neglect, which hall be paid out of their proper etate, and not by the Country or the Townes which chooe them, and whenoever there hall ari{[lse any quetion in any Court amonge the Aitants and Aociates thereof about the explanation of thee Rites and liberties, The Generall Court onely hall have power to interprett them." M. H. S. Coll., iii., viii., 236, 237.

It is not to be doubted that at the following eions of the General Court, "the lawes were read over,” in accordance with this decree. And before the expiration of the three years, committees were appointed to revie the Body of Liberties, and orders relating to it were paed every year afterward until 1648, when the laws were firt printed. Gray's Reports, ix, 513.

Of this firt printed edition of the laws it is uppoed that no copy is now in exitence. Ibid. This is much to be regretted, as a comparion might poibly throw ome light on the change in the law of lavery, which appears in all the ubequent editions. Although hitherto entirely unnoticed, we regard it as highly important; for it takes away the foundation of a grievous charge againt that God-fearing and law-abiding people. For, if "no peron was ever born into legal lavery in Maachuetts," there was a mot {[lshocking chronic violation of law in that Colony and Province for more than a century, hardly to be reconciled with their hitorical reputation. In the econd printed edition, that of 1660, the law appears as follows, under the title

"BOND-SLAVERY

IT is Ordered by this Court & Authority thereof; That there hall never be any bond-lavery villenage or captivity amongt us, unles it be Lawfull captives, taken in jut warrs, [or uch] as [hall] willingly ell themelves, or are old to us, and uch hall have the liberties, & Chritian uuage, which the Law of God etablihed in Irael, Concerning uch perfons, doth morally require, provided this exempts none from ervitude, who hall be judged thereto by Authority. [1641.]" Mas. Laws, Ed. 1660, p. 5.

The words italicized in brackets appear among the manucript corrections of the copy which (formerly the property of Mr. Secretary Rawon, who was himelf apparently the Editor of the volume) is now preerved in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society at Worceter, in Maachuetts. It is plain, however, that the printed text required correction, and—although no better authority can poibly be demanded than that of the Editor himelf—it is confirmed by the subequent edition of 1672, in which the ame error, having been repeated in the text, is made the occaion of a correction in the printed table of errata. There is a want of accuracy even in this correction itelf; but the intention is o obvious that it cannot be mitaken. Mas. Laws, Ed. 1672, pp. 10, 170.

To prevent any poible doubt which may till linger in the mind of any reader at the end of the demontration through which we ourelves firt arrived at this reult, we will add the following record—evidence afterwards dicovered—which it will puzzle the mot atute critic to make "void and of none effect."

In May, 1670, on the lat day of the month, a committee was appointed by the General Court "to perve all our lawes now in force, to collect & drawe vp any literall errors or miplacing of words or entences therein, or any libertjes infringed, and to make a convenient table for the ready finding of all things therein, that o they may be fitted ffor the pree, & the ame to preent to the next eion of this Court, to be further conidered off & approved by the Court." Mas. Records, iv., ii., 453.

At the following eion of the Court, the committee preented their report accordingly, and on the 12th October, 1670, the following order was made:

"The Court, having perved & conidered of the returne of the comittee, to whom the revejw of the lawes was referred, &c., by the Generall Court in May lat, as to the lieorall erratars, &c., do order that in * * * * *

"Page 5, lj: 3, tit. Bondauery, read 'or uch as hall willingly,' &c." Mas. Records, iv., ii, 467.

As the circumtances under which all thee laws and liberties were originally compoed and after long dicuion, minute examination, and repeated reviions, finally ettled and etablihed, forbid the uppofition that lavery came in an unbidden or unwelcome guet—o is it equally impoible to admit that this alteration of the pecial law of lavery by the omiion of so important and ignificant a word could have been accidental or without motive.

If under the original law the children of enlaved captives and trangers might poibly have claimed exemption from that ervitude to which the recognized common law of nations aigned them from their birth; this amendment, by triking out the word "trangers," removed the neceity for alienage or foreign birth as a qualification for lavery, and took off the prohibition againt the children of laves being "born into legal lavery in Maachuetts."

It is true there is little probability that in thoe days the natural rights of thee little heathen, born in a Chritian land, would have been much regarded, or that the owners of lave parents would have had much difficulty in quieting the title by having the increae of their chattels duly "judged" to ervitude by authoritie," in accordance with the civil law; till there might have been color for the claim to freedom, which this amendment effectually barred. And this was in accordance, too, with the law of Moes—the children of laves remained laves, being the clas decribed as "born in the houe."

This Maachuetts law of lavery was not a regulation of the tatus of indentured ervants. "Bond-lavery" was not the name of their ervice, neither is it placed among the "Liberties of ervants," but thoe of "Forreiners and trangers." And in all the editions of the laws, this ditinction is maintained; "Bond-lavery" being invariably a eparate title. White ervants for a term of years would hardly be deignated as trangers, and a careful tudy of the whole ubject jutifies at leat the doubt whether the privileges of ervants belonged to laves at all.

The law mut be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous facts of hiftory. At the time it was made (1641), what had its authors to provide for?

1. Indian laves—their captives taken in war.

2. Negro laves—their own importations of "trangers” obtained by purchae or exchange.

3- Criminals—condemned to lavery as a punihment for offences.

In this light, and only in this light, is their legilation intelligible and conitent. It is very true that the code of which this law is a part "exhibits throughout the hand of the practied lawyer, familiar with the principles and ecurities of Englih Liberty;" but who had ever heard, at that time, of the "common-law rights" of Indians and negroes, or anybody ele but Englihmen?

Thus tood the tatute through the whole colonial period, and it was never exprely repealed. Baed on the Moaic code, it is an abolute recognition of lavery as a legitimate tatus, and of the right of one man to ell himelf as well as that of another man to buy him. It anctions the lave-trade, and the perpetual bondage of Indians and negroes, their children and their children's children, and entitles Maachuetts to precedence over any and all the other colonies in imilar legilation. It anticipates by many years anything of the ort to be found in the tatutes of Virginia, or Maryland, or South Carolina, and nothing like it is to be found in the contemporary codes of her iter colonies in New England. Compare Hildreth, i., 278.

Yet this very law has been gravely cited in a paper communicated to the Maachuetts Hitorical Society, and twice reprinted in its publications without challenge or correction, as an evidence that "o far as it felt free to follow its own inclinations, uncontrolled by the action of the mother country, Maachuetts was hotile to lavery as an intitution.” M. H. S. Coll., iv., iv., 334. Proc., 1855–58, p. 189.

And with the tatute before them, it has been peritently aerted and repeated by all orts of authorities, hitorical and legal, up to that of the Chief Jutice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, that "lavery to a certain extent eems to have crept in; not probably by force of any law, for none uch is found or known to exit." Commonwealth vs. Aves, 18 Pickering, 208. Shaw, C. J.

The leading cae in Maachuetts is that of Winchendon vs. Hatfield in error, iv Mas. Reports, 123. It relates to the ettlement of a negro pauper who had been a lave as early as 1757, and paed through the hands of nine eparate owners before 1775. From the ninth he abconded, and enlited in the Maachuetts Army among the eight-months' men, at Cambridge, in the beginning of the Revolutionary War. His term of ervice had not expired when he was again old, in July, 1776, to another citizen of Maa with whom he lived about five weeks, when he enlited into the three-years' ervice, and his lat owner received the whole of his bounty and part of his wages.

Edom London, for uch was the name of this revolutionary patriot, in 1806 was "poor," and "had become chargeable" to the town in which he reided. That town magnanimouly truggled through all the Courts, from the Justices Court up to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, to hift the reponsibility for the maintenance and upport of the old oldier from itelf to one of the numerous other towns in which he had ojourned from time to time as the lave of his eleven maters. The attempt was unuccesful; but it is worthy of notice, as Chief Jutice Parons, in the deciion on the appeal, ettled everal very important points concerning the laws of lavery in Maachuetts. He said:

"Slavery was introduced into this country [Maachuetts] oon after its firt ettlement, and was tolerated until the ratification of the preent Contitution [the Contitution of 1780]. … The iue of the female lave, according to the maxim of the Civil law, was the property of her mater."

With regard to this latter point, Chief Jutice Dana, in directing a jury, in 1796, had tated as the unanimous opinion of the Court, that a negro born in the State before the Contitution of 1780, was born free, although born of a female lave.