History of the Negro Race in America Volume I Part 44

The instructions against the importation of slaves were in harmony with the feelings of the great majority of the people. They felt that slavery would be a hinderance rather than a help to them, and in the selection of servants chose white ones. If the custom of holding men in bondage had become a part of the inst.i.tutions of Ma.s.sachusetts,--so like a cancer that it could not be removed without endangering the political and commercial life of the colony,--the good people of New Hampshire, acting in the light of experience, resolved, upon the threshold of their provincial life, to oppose the introduction of slaves into their midst. The first result was, that they learned quite early that they could get on without slaves; and, second, the traders in human flesh discovered that there was no demand for slaves in New Hampshire. Even nature fought against the crime; and Negroes were found to be poorly suited to the climate, and, of course, were an expensive luxury in that colony.

But, nevertheless, there were slaves in New Hampshire. The majority of them had gone in during the time the colony was a part of the territory of Ma.s.sachusetts. They had been purchased by men who regarded them as indispensable to them. They had lived long in many families; children had been born unto them, and in many instances they were warmly attached to their owners. But all masters were not alike.

Some treated their servants and slaves cruelly. The neglect in some cases was worse than stripes or over-work. Some were poorly clad and scantily fed; and, thus exposed to the inclemency of the severe climate, many were precipitated into premature graves. Even white and Indian servants shared this harsh treatment. The Indians endured greater hardships than the Negroes. They were more lofty in their tone, more sensitive in their feelings, more revengeful in their disposition. They were both hated and feared, and the public sentiment against them was very p.r.o.nounced. A law, pa.s.sed in 1714, forbid their importation into the colony under a heavy penalty.

In 1718 it was found necessary to pa.s.s a law to check the severe treatment inflicted upon servants and slaves. _An Act for restraining inhuman severities_ recited,--

"Fort the prevention and restraining of inhuman severities which by evil masters or overseers, may be used towards their Christian servants, that from and after the publication hereof, if any man smite out the eye or tooth of his man servant or maid servant, or otherwise maim or disfigure them much, unless it be by mere casualty, he shall let him or her go free from his service, and shall allow such further recompense as the court of quarter sessions shall adjudge him. 2. That if any person or persons whatever in this province shall wilfully kill his Indian or negroe servant or servants he shall be punished with death."[508]

There were slaves in New Hampshire down to the breaking-out of the war in the colonies, but they were only slaves in name. Few in number, widely scattered, they felt themselves closely identified with the interests of the colonists.

FOOTNOTES:

[504] Belknap's Hist. of N.H., vol. i. p. 333.

[505] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 501.

[506] Gordon's Hist. of Am. Rev., vol. v. Letter 2.

[507] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 266.

[508] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 267.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE COLONY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

1681-1775.

ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA.--THE SWEDES AND DUTCH PLANT SETTLEMENTS ON THE WESTERN BANK OF THE DELAWARE RIVER.--THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK SEEKS TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY OF PENNSYLVANIA.--THE FIRST LAWS AGREED UPON IN ENGLAND.--PROVISIONS OF THE LAW.--MEMORIAL AGAINST SLAVERY DRAUGHTED AND ADOPTED BY THE GERMANTOWN FRIENDS.--WILLIAM PENN PRESENTS A BILL FOR THE BITTER REGULATION OF SERVANTS.--AN ACT PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF NEGROES AND INDIANS.--RIGHTS OF NEGROES.--A DUTY LAID UPON NEGROES AND MULATTO SLAVES.--THE QUAKER THE FRIEND OF THE NEGRO.--ENGLAND BEINGS TO THREATEN HER DEPENDENCIES IN NORTH AMERICA.--THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA REFLECT UPON THE PROBABLE OUTRAGES THEIR NEGROES MIGHT COMMIT.

Long before there was an organized government in Pennsylvania, the Swedes and Dutch had planted settlements on the western bank of the Delaware River. But the English crown claimed the soil; and the governor of New York, under patent from the Duke of York, sought to exercise jurisdiction over the territory. On the 11th of July, 1681, "Conditions and Concessions were agreed upon by William Penn, Proprietary," and the persons who were "adventurers and purchasers in the same province." Provision was made for the punishment of persons who should injure Indians, and that the planter injured by them should "not be his own judge upon the Indian." All controversies arising between the whites and the Indians were to be settled by a council of twelve persons,--six white men and six Indians.

The first laws for the government of the colony were agreed upon in England, and in 1682 went into effect. Provision was made for the registering of all servants, their full names, amount of wages paid, and the time when they received their remuneration. It was strictly required that servants should not be kept beyond the time of their indenture, should be kindly treated, and the customary outfit furnished at the time of their freedom.

The baneful custom of enslaving Negroes had spread through every settlement in North America, and was even "tolerated in Pennsylvania under the specious pretence of the religious instruction of the slave."[509] In 1688 Francis Daniel Pastorius draughted a memorial against slavery, which was adopted by the Germantown Friends, and by them sent up to the Monthly Meeting, and thence to the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia.[510] The original doc.u.ment was found by Nathan Kite of Philadelphia in 1844.[511] It was a remarkable doc.u.ment, and the first protest against slavery issued by any religious body in America.

Speaking of the slaves, Pastorius asks, "Have not these negroes as much right to fight for their freedom as you have to keep them slaves?" He believed the time would come,--

"When, from the gallery to the farthest seat, Slave and slave-owner shall no longer meet, But all sit equal at the Master's feet."

He regarded the "buying, selling, and holding men in slavery, as inconsistent with the Christian religion." When his memorial came before the Yearly Meeting for action, it confessed itself "unprepared to act," and voted it "not proper then to give a positive judgment in the case." In 1696 the Yearly Meeting p.r.o.nounced against the further importation of slaves, and adopted measures looking toward their moral improvement. George Keith, catching the holy inspiration of humanity, with a considerable following, denounced the inst.i.tution of slavery "as contrary to the religion of Christ, the rights of man, and sound reason and policy."[512]

While these efforts were, to a certain extent, abortive, yet, nevertheless, the Society of the Friends made regulations for the better treatment of the enslaved Negroes. The sentiment thus created went far toward deterring the better cla.s.s of citizens from purchasing slaves. To his broad and lofty sentiments of humanity, the pious William Penn sought to add the force of positive law. The published views of George Fox, given at Barbadoes in 1671, in his "Gospel Family Order, being a short discourse concerning the ordering of Families, both of Whites, Blacks, and Indians," had a salutary effect upon the mind of Penn. In 1700 he proposed to the Council "_the necessitie of a law [among others] about ye marriages of negroes_." The bill was referred to a joint committee of both houses, and they brought in a bill "_for regulating Negroes in their Morals and Marriages_ &c." It reached a second reading, and was lost.[513] Penn regarded the teaching of Negroes the sanct.i.ty of the marriage relation as of the greatest importance to the colony, and the surest means of promoting pure morals. Upon what grounds it was rejected is not known. He presented, at the same session of the a.s.sembly, another bill, which provided "_for the better regulation of servants in this province and territories_." He desired the government of slaves to be prescribed and regulated by law, rather than by the capricious whims of masters.

No servant was to be sold out of the Province without giving his consent, nor could he be a.s.signed over except before a justice of the peace. It provided for a regular allowance to servants at the expiration of their time, and required them to serve five days extra for every day's absence from their master without the latter's a.s.sent.

A penalty was fixed for concealing runaway slaves, and a reward offered for apprehending them. No free person was allowed to deal with servants, and justices and sheriffs were to be punished for neglecting their duties in the premises.

In case a Negro was guilty of murder, he was tried by two justices, appointed by the governor, before six freeholders. The manner of procedure was prescribed, and the nature of the sentence and acquittal. Negroes were not allowed to carry a gun or other weapons.

Not more than four were allowed together, upon pain of a severe flogging. An Act for raising revenue was pa.s.sed, and a duty upon imported slaves was levied, in 1710. In 1711-12, an Act was pa.s.sed "_to prevent the importation of negroes and Indians_" into the Province. A general pet.i.tion for the emanc.i.p.ation of slaves by law was presented to the Legislature during this same year; but the wise law-makers replied, that "it was neither just nor convenient to set them at liberty." The bill pa.s.sed on the 7th of June, 1712, but was disapproved by Great Britain, and was accordingly repealed by an Act of Queen Anne, Feb. 20, 1713. In 1714 and 1717, Acts were pa.s.sed to check the importation of slaves. But the English government, instead of being touched by the philanthropic endeavors of the people of Pennsylvania, was seeking, for purposes of commercial trade and gain, to darken the continent with the victims of its avarice.

Negroes had no political rights in the Province. Free Negroes were prohibited from entertaining Negro or Indian slaves, or trading with them. Masters were required, when manumitting slaves, to furnish security, as in the other colonies. Marriages between the races were forbidden. Negroes were not allowed to be abroad after nine o'clock at night.

In 1773 the a.s.sembly pa.s.sed "_An Act making perpetual the Act ent.i.tled, An Act for laying a duty on negroes and mulatto slaves_,"

etc., and added ten pounds to the duty. The colonists did much to check the vile and inhuman traffic; but, having once obtained a hold, it did eat like a canker. It threw its dark shadow over personal and collective interests, and poisoned the springs of human kindness in many hearts. It was not alone hurtful to the slave: it transformed and blackened character everywhere, and fascinated those who were anxious for riches beyond the power of moral discernment. Here, however, as in New Jersey, the Negro found the Quaker his practical friend; and his upper and better life received the pruning advice, refining and elevating influence, of a G.o.dly people. But intelligence in the slave was an occasion of offending, and prepared him to realize his deplorable situation. So to enlighten him was to excite in him a deep desire for liberty, and, not unlikely, a feeling of revenge toward his enslavers. So there was really danger in the method the guileless Friends adopted to ameliorate the condition of the slaves.

When England began to breathe out threatenings against her contumacious dependencies in North America, the people of Pennsylvania began to reflect upon the probable outrages their Negroes would, in all probability, commit. They inferred that the Negroes would be their enemy because they were their slaves. This was the equitable findings of a guilty conscience. They did not dare expect less than the revengeful hate of the beings they had laid the yoke of bondage upon; and verily they found themselves with "fears within, and fightings without."

FOOTNOTES:

[509] Gordon's History of Penn., p. 114.

[510] Whittier's Penn. Pilgrim, p. viii.

[511] The memorial referred to was printed _in extenso_ in The Friend, vol. xviii. No 16.

[512] Minutes of Yearly Meeting, Watson's MS. Coll. Bettle's notices of N.S. Minutes, Penn. Hist. Soc.

[513] Colonial Rec., vol. i. pp. 598, 606. See also _Votes_ of a.s.sembly, vol. i. pp. 120-122.

CHAPTER XXV.

THE COLONY OF GEORGIA.

1732-1775.

GEORGIA ONCE INCLUDED IN THE TERRITORY OF CAROLINA.--THE THIRTEENTH COLONY PLANTED IN NORTH AMERICA BY THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT.--SLAVES RULED OUT ALTOGETHER BY THE TRUSTEES.--THE OPINION OF GEN. OGLETHORPE CONCERNING SLAVERY.--LONG AND BITTER DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF SLAVERY INTO THE COLONY.--SLAVERY INTRODUCED.--HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN GEORGIA.

Georgia was once included in the territory of Carolina, and extended from the Savannah to the St. John's River. A corporate body, under the t.i.tle of "The Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia," was created by charter, bearing date of June 9, 1732. The life of their trust was for the s.p.a.ce of twenty-one years. The rules by which the trustees sought to manage the infant were rather novel; but as a discussion of them would be irrelevant, mention can be made only of that part which related to slavery. Georgia was the last colony--the thirteenth--planted in North America by the English government.

Special interest centred in it for several reasons, that will be explained farther on.

The trustees ruled out slavery altogether. Gen. John Oglethorpe, a brilliant young English officer of gentle blood, the first governor of the colony, was identified with "the Royal African Company, which alone had the right of planting forts and trading on the coast of Africa." He said that "slavery is against the gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England. We refused, as trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid crime." Another of the trustees, in a sermon preached on Sunday, Feb. 17, 1734, at St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, declared, "Slavery, the misfortune, if not the dishonor, of other plantations, is absolutely proscribed. Let avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of our own species as our wealth and possessions." Beautiful sentiments! Eloquent testimony against the crime of the ages! At first blush the student of history is apt to praise the sublime motives of the "trustees," in placing a restriction against the slave-trade. But the declaration of principles quoted above is not borne out by the facts of history. On this point Dr. Stevens, the historian of Georgia, observes, "Yet in the official publications of that body [the trustees], its inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not on humane and liberal grounds, and even Oglethorpe owned a plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina, about forty miles above Savannah."[514] To this reliable opinion is added:--

"The introduction of slaves was prohibited to the colony of Georgia for some years, not from motives of humanity, but for the reason it was encouraged elsewhere, to wit: the interest of the mother country. It was a favorite idea with the 'mother country,' to make _Georgia_ a protecting blanket for the Carolinas, against the Spanish settlements south of her, and the princ.i.p.al Indian tribes to the west; to do this, a strong settlement of white men was sought to be built up, whose arms and interests would defend her northern plantations. The introduction of slaves was held to be unfavorable to this scheme, and hence its prohibition.

During the time of the prohibition, Oglethorpe himself was a slave holder in Carolina."[515]

The reasons that led the trustees to prohibit slavery in the colony are put thus tersely.--

"1st. Its expense: which the poor emigrant would be entirely unable to sustain, either in the first cost of a negro, or his subsequent keeping. 2d. Because it would induce idleness and render labour degrading. 3d. Because the settlers, being freeholders of only fifty-acre lots, requiring but one or two extra hands for their cultivation, the German servants would be a third more profitable than the blacks. Upon the last original design I have mentioned, in planting this colony, they also based an argument against their admission, viz., that the cultivation of silk and wine, demanding skill and nicety, rather than strength and endurance of fatigue, the whites were better calculated for such labour than the negroes. These were the prominent arguments, drawn from the various considerations of internal and external policy, which influenced the Trustees in making this prohibition.

Many of them, however, had but a temporary bearing, none stood the test of experience."[516]

It is clear, then, that the founders of the colony of Georgia were not moved by the n.o.blest impulses to prohibit slavery within their jurisdiction. In the chapter on South Carolina, attention was called to the influence of the Spanish troops in Florida on the recalcitrant Negroes in the Carolinas, the Negro regiment with subalterns from their own cla.s.s, and the work of Spanish emissaries among the slaves.