DOMESTIC SERVICE DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD
It has been seen how great a change the inventions of the past century
have made in the character of household employments. A change in the
nature of household service no less important has taken place by virtue
of the political revolutions of the century, acting in connection with
certain economic and social forces. The subject of domestic service
looms up so prominently in the foreground to-day that there is danger of
forgetting that it has a past as well as a present. Yet it is impossible
to understand its present condition without comprehending, in a measure,
the manner in which it has been affected by its own history. It is
equally impossible to forecast its future without due regard to this
history.
Domestic service in America has passed through three distinct phases. The
first extends from the early colonization to the time of the Revolution;
the second, from the Revolution to about 1850; the third, from 1850 to
the present time.
During the colonial period service of every kind was performed by
transported convicts, indented white servants or “redemptioners,” “free
willers,” negroes, and Indians.[11]
The first three classes—convicts, redemptioners, and free willers—were
of European, at first generally of English, birth. The colonization of
the new world gave opportunity for the transportation and subsequent
employment in the colonies of large numbers of persons who, as a rule,
belonged to a low class in the social scale.[12] The mother country
looked with satisfaction on this method of disposing of those “such,
as had there been no _English_ foreign Plantation in the World, could
probably never have lived at home to do service for their Country, but
must have come to be hanged, or starved, or dyed untimely of some of
those miserable Diseases, that proceed from want, and vice.”[13] She
regarded her “plantations abroad as a good effect proceeding from many
evil causes,” and congratulated herself on being freed from “such sort of
people, as their crimes and debaucheries would quickly destroy at home,
or whom their wants would confine in prisons or force to beg, and so
render them useless, and consequently a burthen to the public.”[14]
From the very first the advantage to England of this method of disposing
of her undesirable population had been urged. The author of _Nova
Britannia_ wrote in 1609: “You see it no new thing, but most profitable
for our State, to rid our multitudes of such as lie at home, pestering
the land with pestilence and penury, and infecting one another with
vice and villanie, worse than the plague it selfe.”[15] So admirable
did the plan seem in time that between the years 1661 and 1668 various
proposals were made to the King and Council to constitute an office for
transporting to the Plantations all vagrants, rogues, and idle persons
that could give no account of themselves, felons who had the benefit
of clergy, and such as were convicted of petty larceny—such persons to
be transported to the nearest seaport and to serve four years if over
twenty years of age, and seven years if under twenty.[16] Virginia and
Maryland[17] were the colonies to which the majority of these servants
were sent, though they were not unknown elsewhere.[18]
Protests were often made against this method of settlement, both by the
colonists themselves[19] and by Englishmen,[20] but it was long before
the English government abandoned the practice of transporting criminals
to the American colonies.[21]
Of the three classes of white, or Christian servants, as they were called
to distinguish them from Indians and negroes, the free willers were
evidently found only in Maryland. This class was considered even more
unfortunate than that of the indented servants or convicts. They were
received under the condition that they be allowed a certain number of
days in which to dispose of themselves to the greatest advantage. But
since servants could be procured for a trifling consideration on absolute
terms, there was no disposition to take a class of servants who wished to
make their own terms. If they did not succeed in making terms within a
certain number of days, they were sold to pay for their passage.[22] The
colonists saw very little difference between the transported criminals
and political prisoners, the free willers, and the redemptioners who sold
themselves into slavery, and as between the two classes—redemptioners and
convicted felons—they at first considered the felons the more profitable
as their term of service was for seven years, while that of the indented
servants was for five years only.[23]
It is impossible to state the proportion of servants belonging to the two
classes of transported convicts and redemptioners, but the statement is
apparently fair that the redemptioners who sold themselves into service
to pay for the cost of their passage constituted by far the larger
proportion. These were found in all the colonies, though more numerous
in the Southern and Middle colonies than in New England. In Virginia
and Maryland they outnumbered negro slaves until the latter part of the
seventeenth century.[24] In Massachusetts, apprenticed servants bound for
a term of years were sold from ships in Boston as late as 1730,[25] while
the general trade in bound white servants lasted until the time of the
Revolution,[26] and in Pennsylvania even until this century.[27]
The first redemptioners were naturally of English birth, but after a
time they were supplanted by those of other nationalities, particularly
by the Germans and Irish. As early as 1718 there was a complaint of the
Irish immigrants in Massachusetts.[28] In Connecticut “a parcel of Irish
servants, both men and women,” just imported from Dublin, was advertised
to be sold cheap in 1764.[29] In 1783 large numbers of Irish and German
redemptioners entered Maryland, and a society was formed to assist the
Germans who could not speak English.[30]
It has been said that a great majority of the redemptioners belonged
at first to a low class in the social scale. A considerable number,
however, both men and women, belonged to the respectable, even to the
so-called upper classes of society.[31] They were sent over to prevent
disadvantageous marriages,[32] to secure inheritances to other members of
a family,[33] or to further some criminal scheme.
Many of these bond servants sold themselves into servitude, others
were disposed of through emigration brokers,[34] and still others were
kidnapped, being enticed on shipboard by persons called “spirits.”[35]
The form of indenture was simple, and varied but little in the different
colonies. Stripped of its cumbersome legal phraseology, it included the
three main points of time of service, the nature of the service to be
performed, although this was usually specified to be “in any such service
as his employer shall employ him,” and the compensation to be given.[36]
It sometimes happened that servants came without indenture. In such
cases the law expressly and definitely fixed their status, though it
was found extremely difficult to decide upon a status that could be
permanent. Virginia, in particular, for a long time found it impossible
to pass a law free from objections, and its experience will illustrate
the difficulties encountered elsewhere. An early law in Virginia provided
that if a servant came without indenture, he or she was to serve four
years if more than twenty years old, five years if between twelve and
twenty years of age, and seven years if under twelve.[37] Subsequently
it was provided that all Irish servants without indenture should serve
six years if over sixteen and that all under sixteen should serve until
the age of twenty-four,[38] and this was again modified into a provision
requiring those above sixteen years to serve four years and those
under fifteen to serve until twenty-one, the Court to be the judge of
their ages.[39] It was soon found, however, that the term of six years
“carried with it both rigour and inconvenience” and that thus many were
discouraged from coming to the country, and “the peopling of the country
retarded.” It was therefore enacted that in the future no servant of any
Christian nation coming without indenture should serve longer than those
of the same age born in the country.[40] But as the law was also made
retroactive, it was soon ordained that all aliens without indenture could
serve five years if above sixteen years of age and all under that until
they were twenty-four years old, “that being the time lymitted by the
laws of England.”[41] This arrangement was equally unsatisfactory, since
it was found that under it “a servant if adjudged never soe little under
sixteene yeares pays for that small tyme three yeares service, and if he
be adjudged more the master looseth the like.” It was then resolved that
if the person were adjudged nineteen years or over he or she should serve
five years, and if under that age then as many years as he should lack
of being twenty-four.[42] This provision was apparently satisfactory,
subsequent laws varying only in minor provisions concerning the details
of the Act.[43]
The condition of the redemptioners seems to have been, for the most part,
an unenviable one. George Alsop, it is true, writes in glowing terms of
the advantages enjoyed in Maryland:
“For know,” he says, “That the Servants here in _Mary-land_ of
all Colonies, distant or remote Plantations, have the least
cause to complain, either for strictness of Servitude, want of
Provisions, or need of Apparel: Five dayes and a half in the
Summer weeks is the alotted time that they work in; and for two
months when the Sun predominates in the highest pitch of his
heat, they claim an antient and customary Priviledge, to repose
themselves three hours in the day within the house, and this is
undeniably granted to them that work in the Fields.
“In the Winter time, which lasteth three months (viz.),
_December_, _January_, and _February_, they do little or no
work or employment, save cutting of wood to make good fires to
sit by, unless their Ingenuity will prompt them to hunt the
Deer, or Bear, or recreate themselves in Fowling, to slaughter
the Swans, Geese, and Turkeys (which this Country affords in
a most plentiful manner): For every Servant has a Gun, Powder
and Shot allowed him, to sport him withall on all Holidayes and
leasurable times, if he be capable of using it, or be willing
to learn.”[44]
Hammond also says of Virginia:
“The Women are not (as is reported) put into the ground to
worke, but occupie such domestique employments and houswifery
as in _England_, that is dressing victuals, righting up the
house, milking, imployed about dayries, washing, sowing, &c.
and both men and women have times of recreations, as much or
more than in any part of the world besides.... And whereas it
is rumoured that Servants have no lodging other then on boards,
or by the Fire side, it is contrary to reason to believe it:
First, as we are Christians; next as people living under a law,
which compels as well the Master as the Servant to perform his
duty; nor can true labour be either expected or exacted without
sufficient cloathing, diet, and lodging; all which both their
Indentures (which must inviolably be observed) and the Justice
of the Country requires.”[45]
A Glasgow merchant under date of January 19, 1714, also writes: “The
servants are all well cloathed and provided with bedding as ye will see,”
adding that some servants prefer “Mariland, the reason whereof is that
Virginia is a little odious to the people here.”[46]
But these enthusiastic descriptions must be taken _cum grano salis_. The
object of Alsop’s book was to stimulate emigration to Maryland, as is
evident from the dedication to Lord Baltimore and to “all the Merchant
Adventures for Mary-land.” The object of _Leah and Rachel_ was the same,
and others who wrote in a similar strain had evidently little personal
knowledge of the condition of the redemptioners. The real life is more
truly portrayed in the accounts given by the redemptioners themselves,
and many of these are preserved.
The Anglesea Peerage Trial brings out the facts that the redemptioners
fared ill, worked hard, lived on a coarse diet, and drank only water
sweetened with a little molasses and flavored with ginger.[47] Eddis says
the redemptioners were treated worse than the negroes, since the loss of
a negro fell on his master; inflexible severity was exercised over the
European servants who “groaned beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage.”[48]
Richard Frethorne, writing from Martin’s Hundred, gives a pitiful tale of
the sufferings of the indented servants. “Oh! that you did see my daily
and hourly sighs, groans, tears and thumps that I afford my own breast,
and rue and curse the time of my birth with holy Job. I thought no head
had been able to hold so much water as hath, and doth daily flow from
mine eyes.”[49]
The maid who waited on the Sot-Weed Factor says:
“In better Times, e’re to this Land,
I was unhappily Trapann’d;
Perchance as well I did appear,
As any Lord or Lady here,
Not then a slave for twice two Year.
My Cloaths were fashionably new,
Nor were my Shifts of Linnen Blue;
But things are changed, now at the Hoe,
I daily work, and Bare-foot go,
In weeding Corn or feeding Swine,
I spend my melancholy Time.”[50]
Undoubtedly, in time, servants of all kinds received more consideration
than had at first been given them;[51] in 1704 Madame Knight even
complained of what she considered too great indulgence on the part of the
Connecticut farmers towards their slaves.[52] Yet, even at the North, the
lot of a servant was not an enviable one, though much was done by the
laws of all the colonies to mitigate the condition of the redemptioners,
as will be seen later in discussing the legal relations of masters and
servants.
The wages paid were, as a rule, small, though some complaints are found,
especially in New England, of high wages and poor service.[53] More
often the wages were a mere pittance. Elizabeth Evans came from Ireland
to serve John Wheelwright for three years. Her wages were to be three
pounds a year and passage paid.[54] Margery Batman, after five years of
service in Charlestown, was to receive a she-goat to help her in starting
life.[55] Mary Polly, according to the terms of her indenture, was to
serve ten years and then receive “three barrells of corn and one suit of
penistone and one suit of good serge with one black hood, two shifts of
dowlas and shoes and hose convenient.”[56]
Peter Kalm writes of Pennsylvania in 1748: “A servant maid gets eight
or ten pounds a year: these servants have their food besides their
wages, but must buy their own clothes, and what they get of these they
must thank their master’s goodness for.” He adds that it was cheaper to
buy indented servants since “this kind of servants may be got for half
the money, and even for less; for they commonly pay fourteen pounds
_Pennsylvania_ currency, for a person who is to serve four years.”[57]
Even at the beginning of the present century wages had scarcely risen.
Samuel Breck writes of two redemptioners whom he purchased in 1817: “I
gave for the woman seventy-six dollars, which is her passage-money, with
a promise of twenty dollars at the end of three years if she serves
me faithfully; clothing and maintenance of course. The boy had paid
twenty-six guilders toward his passage-money, which I agreed to give
him at the end of three years; in addition to which I paid fifty-three
dollars and sixty cents for his passage, and for two years he is to have
six weeks’ schooling each year.”[58]
For the protection of both masters and servants the law sometimes
interfered and attempted to regulate the matter of wages received at
the end of an indenture. In Virginia by the code of 1705 every woman
servant was to receive fifteen bushels of Indian corn and forty shillings
in money, or the value thereof in goods.[59] In 1748 it was enacted
“that every servant, male or female, not having wages, shall, at the
expiration of his, or her time of service, have and receive three pounds
ten shillings current money, for freedom dues, to be paid by his, or
her master, or owner,”[60] and in 1758 the same law was re-enacted,
but excepting convicts from the provisions of the Act.[61] In South
Carolina all women servants at the expiration of their time were to have
“a Wastcoat and Petticoat of new Half-thick or Pennistone, a new Shift
of white Linnen, a new Pair of shoes and stockings, a blue apron and
two caps of white Linnen.”[62] The laws of Pennsylvania provided that
every servant who served faithfully four years should at the expiration
of the term of servitude have a discharge and be duly clothed with two
complete suits of apparel, one of which should be new,[63] while in
Massachusetts and New York it was provided that all servants who had
served diligently and faithfully to the benefit of their masters should
not be sent away empty.[64] In North Carolina every servant not having
yearly wages was to be allowed at the expiration of the term of service
three pounds Proclamation money, besides one sufficient suit of wearing
clothes.[65] In East New Jersey the law was more liberal and gave every
servant two suits of apparel suitable for a servant, one good felling
axe, a good hoe, and seven bushels of good Indian corn.[66] West New
Jersey gave ten bushels of corn, necessary apparel, two horses, and
one axe.[67] In Maryland a woman at the expiration of her term was to
have the same provision of corn and clothes as men servants, namely, “a
good Cloath suite either of Kersey or broad Cloath, a shift of white
Linnen to be new, one new pair of shoes and stockings, two hoes one Ax
and three barrˡˡˢ of Indian corn.”[68] A later act specified that women
servants were to have “a Waist-coat and Petty-coat of new Half-thick,
or Pennistone, a new Shift of White Linen, Shoes and Stockings, a blue
Apron, Two Caps of White Linen, and Three Barrells of Indian Corn.”[69]
The test question to be applied to any system of service is—Is the
service secured through it satisfactory? It has been seen that a
considerable number of servants could be secured through the system of
indenture, though probably less than the colonists desired, and that the
wages paid them were, as a rule, remarkably low. But it must be said that
the service received from indented servants was, as a rule, what might be
expected from the class that came to America in that capacity.
It is easy to surmise the character of the service rendered at first
in Virginia and the difficulties encountered by employers. Many of
the redemptioners had been idlers and vagabonds, and for idlers and
vagabonds, there as elsewhere, stringent laws were necessary. In 1610,
under the administration of Sir Thomas Gates, various orders were passed
with reference to pilfering on the part of launderers, laundresses,
bakers, cooks, and dressers of fish.
“What man or woman soeuer, Laundrer or Laundresse appointed to
wash the foule linnen of any one labourer or souldier, or any
one else as it is their duties so to doe, performing little,
or no other seruice for their allowance out of the store, and
daily prouisions, and supply of other necessaries, vnto the
Colonie, and shall from the said labourer or souldier, or any
one else, of what qualitie whatsoeuer, either take any thing
for washing, or withhold or steale from him any such linnen
committed to her charge to wash, or change the same willingly
and wittingly, with purpose to giue him worse, old or torne
linnen for his good, and proofe shall be made thereof, she
shall be whipped for the same, and lie in prison till she make
restitution of such linnen, withheld or changed.”[70]
Even more stringent penalties are attached to purloining from the flour
and meal given out for baking purposes.[71]
But it is not alone in Virginia that perplexed employers were found. John
Winter, writing to Trelawny from Richmond Island, Maine, under date of
July 10, 1639, says of a certain Priscilla:
“You write me of some yll reports is given of my Wyfe for
beatinge the maid; yf a faire waye will not do yt, beatinge
must, sometimes, vppon such Idlle girrells as she is. Yf you
think yt fitte for my wyfe to do all the worke & the maide
sitt still, she must forbeare her hands to strike, for then
the worke will ly vndonn. She hath bin now 2 yeares ½ in the
house, & I do not thinke she hath risen 20 times before my Wyfe
hath bin vp to Call her, & many tymes light the fire before
she Comes out of her bed. She hath twize gon a mechinge in the
woodes, which we haue bin faine to send all our Company to
seeke. We Cann hardly keep her within doores after we ar gonn
to beed, except we Carry the kay of the doore to beed with us.
She never Could melke Cow nor goat since she Came hither. Our
men do not desire to haue her boyle the kittle for them she is
so sluttish. She Cannot be trusted to serue a few piggs, but
my wyfe most Commonly must be with her. She hath written home,
I heare, that she was fame to ly vppon goates skins. She might
take som goates skins to ly in her bedd, but not given to her
for her lodginge. For a yeare & quarter or more she lay with
my daughter vppon a good feather bed before my daughter being
lacke 3 or 4 daies to Sacco, the maid goes into beed with her
Cloth & stockins, & would not take the paines to plucke of her
Cloths: her bedd after was a doust bedd & she had 2 Coverletts
to ly on her, but sheets she had none after that tyme she was
found to be so sluttish. Her beating that she hath had hath
never hurt her body nor limes. She is so fatt & soggy she Cann
hardly do any worke. This I write all the Company will Justify.
Yf this maid at her lasy tymes, when she hath bin found in her
ill accyons, do not deserue 2 or 3 blowes, I pray Judge You who
hath most reason to Complaine, my wyfe or the maid.... She hath
an vnthankefull office to do this she doth, for I thinke their
was never that steward yt amonge such people as we haue Could
giue them all Content. Yt does not pleas me well being she hath
taken so much paines & Care to order things as well as she
Could, & ryse in the morning rath, & go to bed soe latte, & to
haue hard speches for yt.”[72]
Winter’s letters and reports to the London Company are as full of his
trials with his servants indoors and out, as are the conferences to-day
between perplexed employers. Even when fortune smiled on him and one
promised well, misfortune overtook her.
“The maid Tomson had a hard fortune. Yt was her Chance to be
drowned Cominge over the barr after our Cowes, & very little
water on the barr, not aboue ½ foote, & we Cannot Judge how yt
should be, accept that her hatt did blow from her head, & she
to saue her hatt stept on the side of the barr.... I thinke
yf she had lived she would haue proved a good servant in the
house: she would do more worke then 3 such maides as Pryssyllea
is.”[73]
It is true that Maine was a remote colony and the difficulty of obtaining
good servants was presumably greater than in places more accessible. Yet
the same tale of trial comes from Boston and from those whose means,
character, and position in society would seem to exempt them from the
difficulties more naturally to be expected in other places. Mrs. Mary
Winthrop Dudley writes repeatedly in 1636 to her mother, Mrs. Margaret
Winthrop, begging her to send her a maid, “on that should be a good
lusty seruant that hath skille in a dairy.”[74] But how unsatisfactory
the “lusty servant” proved a later letter of Mrs. Dudley shows:
“I thought it convenient,” she writes, “to acquaint you and my
father what a great affliction I haue met withal by my maide
servant, and how I am like through God his mercie to be freed
from it; at her first coming me she carried her selfe dutifully
as became a servant; but since through mine and my husbands
forbearance towards her for small faults, she hath got such a
head and is growen soe insolent that her carriage towards vs,
especially myselfe is vnsufferable. If I bid her doe a thinge
shee will bid me to doe it my selfe, and she sayes how shee
can give content as wel as any servant but shee will not, and
sayes if I loue not quietnes I was never so fitted in my life,
for shee would make mee haue enough of it. If I should write
to you of all the reviling speeches and filthie language shee
hath vsed towards me I should but grieue you. My husband hath
vsed all meanes for to reforme her, reasons and perswasions,
but shee doth professe that her heart and her nature will not
suffer her to confesse her faults. If I tell my husband of her
behauiour towards me, vpon examination shee will denie all that
she hath done or spoken: so that we know not how to proceede
against her: but my husband now hath hired another maide and is
resolved to put her away the next weeke.”[75]
Other members of the Winthrop family also have left an account of their
trials of this kind. A generation later, July 7, 1682, Wait Winthrop
wrote to Fitz-John Winthrop, “I feare black Tom will do but little
seruis. He used to make a show of hanging himselfe before folkes, but
I believe he is not very nimble about it when he is alone. Tis good to
haue an eye to him, and if you think it not worth while to keep him,
eyther sell him or send him to Virginia or the West Indies before
winter. He can do something as a smith.”[76] In the third generation John
Winthrop, the son of Wait Winthrop, wrote to his father from New London,
Connecticut, 1717:
“It is not convenient now to write the trouble & plague we have
had wᵗʰ this Irish creature the year past. Lying & unfaithfull;
wᵈ doe things on purpose in contradiction & vexation to her
mistress; lye out of the house anights, and have contrivances
wᵗʰ fellows that have been stealing from oʳ estate & gett
drink out of yᵉ cellar for them; saucy & impudent, as when we
have taken her to task for her wickedness she has gon away to
complain of cruell usage. I can truly say we have used this
base creature wᵗʰ a great deal of kindness & lenity. She wᵈ
frequently take her mistresses capps & stockins, hanckerchers
&c., and dress herselfe, and away wᵗʰout leave among her
companions. I may have said some time or other when she has
been in fault, that she was fitt to live nowhere butt in
Virginia, and if she wᵈ not mend her ways I should send her
thither; thô I am sure no body wᵈ give her passage thither to
have her service for 20 yeares, she is such a high spirited
pernicious jade. Robin has been run away near ten days, as you
will see by the inclosed, and this creature knew of his going
and of his carrying out 4 dozen bottles of cyder, metheglin, &
palme wine out of the cellar amongst the servants of the towne,
and meat and I know not wᵗ.”[77]
The trials of at least one Connecticut housekeeper are hinted at in an
Order of the General Court in 1645, providing that a certain “Susan C.,
for her rebellious carriage toward her mistress, is to be sent to the
house of correction and be kept to hard labor and coarse diet, to be
brought forth the next lecture day to be publicly corrected, and so to be
corrected weekly, until order be given to the contrary.”[78]
But it is undoubtedly in the legislation of the colonial period that one
finds the best reflection of colonial service, and one may say of it, as
Judge Sewall wrote to a friend when sending him a copy of the Statutes at
Large for 1684, “You will find much pleasant and profitable Reading in
it.”[79] Numerous acts were passed in all the colonies determining the
relation between masters and servants, and these laws were most explicit
in protecting the interests of both parties—a fact often indicated by the
very name of the act, as that of 1700 in Pennsylvania, entitled “For the
just encouragement of servants in the discharge of their duty, and the
prevention of their deserting their master’s or owner’s service.”[80]
In the legislation in regard to service and servants, it is impossible
always to discriminate between the general class of either bound or life
servants and the particular class of domestic employees. But the smaller
class was comprised in the larger, and household servants had the benefit
of all legislation affecting servants as a whole. Few or no laws were
passed specifically for the benefit of domestic employees.
These laws worked both ways. On the one hand, they were intended to
protect the servant from the selfishness and cruelty of those masters who
would be inclined to take advantage of their position; on the other hand,
they protected the master who had invested his capital in servants, and
asked protection for it at the hands of the law, as he sought protection
for any other form of property.
Several general classes of laws are found for the protection of servants.
The first provides that no servant, bound to serve his or her time
in a province, could be sold out of the province, without his or her
consent.[81] A second class of laws compelled masters and mistresses to
provide their servants with wholesome and sufficient food, clothing, and
lodging;[82] and a third provided that if a servant became ill during
the time of his service, his master should be under obligation to care
for him, and heavy penalties were sometimes incurred by a master who
discharged a servant when sick.[83]
The law went even further and protected servants against unjust cruelty,
especially against every form of bodily maiming. If a white servant lost
an eye or a tooth at the hands of his master or mistress, he gained his
freedom, and could sometimes recover further compensation, if the Court
so adjudged.[84] If servants fled from the cruelty of their master, they
were to be protected, though notice of such protection was to be sent
to the master and the magistrate.[85] In New York if a master or dame
tyrannically and cruelly abused a servant, the latter could complain
to the constable and overseers, who were instructed to admonish the
master on the first offence, and on the second, to protect the servant
in the house until relief could be obtained through the Courts.[86]
In North Carolina no Christian servant could be whipped without an
order from the justice of the peace; if any one presumed so to do, the
person offending was to pay forty shillings to the party injured.[87]
Immoderate punishment also subjected the master to appear before the
County Court to answer for his conduct.[88] When New Jersey became a
royal province in 1702, the instructions of the Crown to Lord Cornbury
included a provision that he should “endeavor 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 imposed
for the maiming of them.”[89] Moreover, in North Carolina complaints of
servants against their masters could be heard without formal process of
action.[90] In Pennsylvania the law of 1771 provided that every indented
servant should obtain a legal residence in the city or place where he
or she had first served his or her master sixty days, or if he had
afterwards served twelve months in any other place, he was at liberty to
choose his residence in either place. In South Carolina a master denying
a certificate at the expiration of a servant’s time was to forfeit two
pounds.[91]
Important as these provisions were in the interest of the servant, the
law protected the master even more carefully and specifically. The
great danger to him was in the loss of servants through their escaping
from service and being harbored by friendly sympathizers or rival
employers. The law dealt rigorously with both classes of offenders. In
South Carolina stubborn, refractory, and discontented servants, who ran
away before their term of service expired, were obliged to serve their
masters three times the period of their absence.[92] In Pennsylvania
every servant absenting himself without leave for one day or more was
to serve, at the expiration of his time, five days for every day’s
absence, and in addition, to give satisfaction to his master for any
damages or charges incurred through his absence.[93] In East New Jersey
runaways were to serve double the time of their absence, and also to
give satisfaction for the costs and damages caused by their absence.[94]
In North Carolina runaways who would not tell the name of their master,
either because unable to speak English or through obstinacy, were to
be committed to jail and advertised for two months. Servants absenting
themselves were to serve double time.[95] In South Carolina a servant who
ran away was to serve one week for every day’s absence, but the whole
time was not to exceed two years.[96] Servants running away with slaves
were to be considered felons. In Maryland absenting servants were to
serve additional time at the discretion of the Court, ten days, or not
exceeding that, for every day’s absence, and to give satisfaction for
costs incurred.[97]
The temptation to harbor runaways was great, not so much from
philanthropic motives as because of the scarcity of labor, and every
colony supplemented its legislation against runaways by corresponding
acts carrying penalties for harboring them. In East New Jersey the
offender was fined five pounds and was to make full satisfaction to
the master or mistress for costs and damages sustained because of the
absence, while any person who knowingly harbored or entertained a
runaway, “except of real charity,” was to pay the master or mistress of
the servant ten shillings for every day’s entertainment and concealment
and to be fined at the discretion of the Court.[98] In Connecticut the
presumption was that if servants were entertained after nine o’clock at
night they were runaways, and the head of the family so entertaining
them was to forfeit five shillings to the complainer and five shillings
to the town treasurer. Any Indian hiding a runaway was to forfeit forty
shillings for every such offence or suffer a month’s imprisonment.[99]
In South Carolina runaways were not to be harbored under a penalty of
two pounds for every day and night the servant was so entertained, but
the total amount forfeited was not to exceed treble the value of the
servant’s time remaining to be served.[100] In New York any one proved
to have connived at the absence of a servant was to forfeit twenty
pounds to the master or dame and five pounds to the Court. Any one
knowingly harboring a runaway was to forfeit ten shillings for every
day’s entertainment.[101] In Pennsylvania any one concealing a servant
forfeited twenty shillings for each day’s concealment.[102] In Rhode
Island any person entertaining a servant after nine o’clock at night
forfeited five shillings for each offence.[103] In Maryland, by an act
of 1692, persons harboring runaways were to forfeit five hundred pounds
of tobacco for every hour’s entertainment, one half to the government
and one half to the informer.[104] By a later act the person harboring
runaways was to forfeit one hundred pounds of tobacco for every hour’s
entertainment, one half to go to the public schools and one half to the
party aggrieved.[105] This was intended to meet evasions of the previous
laws on the part of those who harbored runaways a few hours at a time
and then helped them on their way. Free negroes or mulattoes harboring
runaways were to forfeit one thousand pounds of tobacco for every such
offence, one half for the use of free schools and one half to the party
aggrieved.[106] By a later act, servants harboring runaways were to be
punished by the magistrate by lashes, not to exceed thirty-nine, on the
bare back.[107]
On the other hand, every incentive was held out to assist in the return
of runaways. In North Carolina any person who assisted in taking up
runaways was rewarded, the reward being gauged by the number of miles
away from the master’s house that the servant was taken.[108] In
Pennsylvania any one apprehending a runaway servant and returning him
or her to the sheriff of the county was to receive ten shillings if the
runaway was taken within ten miles of the master’s house and twenty
shillings if at a distance of more than ten miles.[109] In Connecticut
any Indian who returned a runaway to the nearest authority was to receive
as a reward two yards of cloth.[110] In Maryland the allowance was two
hundred pounds of tobacco, while Indians were to receive a match coat or
its value.[111] Persons in Virginia, Delaware, or the northern parts of
America, who apprehended runaways from Maryland, were to receive four
hundred pounds of tobacco, and the servant was to reimburse his master
by additional servitude.[112] Every precaution to prevent runaways was
taken. Indian, negro, and mulatto servants were not to travel without
a pass,[113] nor were slaves to leave their plantation without leave,
except negroes wearing liveries.[114] In Connecticut servants were not
to go abroad after nine o’clock at night,[115] in Massachusetts they
were not to frequent public houses,[116] and in South Carolina and
Massachusetts innkeepers were not to harbor them.[117]
Yet the life under a master or mistress was often such as to tempt a
servant to escape; added to a condition that often involved hard work,
poor lodging, and insufficient food and clothing, was the infliction of
humiliating corporal punishment in case of disobedience or disorder. In
Connecticut a servant could be punished by the magistrate not to exceed
ten stripes for one offence.[118] The Rhode Island law was similar.[119]
In North Carolina runaways were to receive from the constable as many
lashes as the justice of the peace should think fit, “not exceeding
the Number of thirty-nine, well laid on, on the Back of such Runaway,”
while disobedient servants were to be punished with corporal punishment,
not to exceed twenty-one lashes. In cases where free persons suffered
punishment by being fined, servants were whipped.[120] In South Carolina
a servant for striking his master or mistress was to serve not more than
six months’ additional time, or be punished with not more than twenty-one
stripes.[121] In Massachusetts and New York any servants who had been
unfaithful, negligent, or unprofitable in their service, notwithstanding
good usage from their masters, were not to be dismissed until they had
made satisfaction according to the judgment of the civil authorities.[122]
In nearly every colony heavy penalties followed attempts to carry on
trade or barter with servants. In North Carolina a freeman trading with a
servant forfeited treble the value of the goods traded for and six pounds
in addition; if unable to pay the fine he was himself sold as a servant.
A servant trading or selling the property of his master was to serve his
master additional time, the length to be fixed by the Court.[123] In
East New Jersey the penalty was five pounds for the first offence and ten
pounds for each subsequent one; the offending servant was to be whipped
by the person to whom he had tendered such sale, the reward of half a
crown being paid by the master or mistress to the person administering
the punishment.[124] In Pennsylvania any one trading secretly with a
servant was to forfeit to the master three times the value of the goods,
and the servant at the expiration of his time was to render satisfaction
to the master to double the value of the goods, and, if black, was to
be whipped in the most public place in the township.[125] Trading with
servants was prohibited in Connecticut[126] and in Massachusetts.[127]
In South Carolina any one buying, selling, or bartering with a servant
was to forfeit treble the value of the goods and ten pounds to the
informer; the offending servant was to be whipped on the bare back in the
watch-house at Charleston.[128] In New York servants were forbidden to
trade under penalty of fine or corporal punishment. Those trading with
servants were to restore the commodities to the master and to forfeit
double their value to the poor of the parish.[129] In Maryland the
penalty was two thousand pounds of tobacco, one half to go to the king
and one half to the master.[130]
Many miscellaneous provisions in different colonies must have seemed
oppressive. In New Jersey and South Carolina servants could not marry
without the consent of their masters.[131] In Massachusetts no covenant
servant in the household with any other could be an office holder.[132]
In Pennsylvania innkeepers were forbidden to trust them.[133] In North
Carolina servants making false complaints in regard to illness were to
serve double the time lost, and the same penalty followed if they were
sent to jail for any offence.[134] No slave was to go armed in North
Carolina, and if one was found offending, the person making the discovery
was to appropriate the weapon for his own use, and the servant was to
receive twenty lashes on his or her bare back. One servant on each
plantation, however, was exempted from the law, but such an one must
carry a certificate of permission.[135] In Massachusetts servants were
to be catechised once a week[136] and were not to wear apparel exceeding
the quality and condition of their persons or estates under penalty of
admonition for the first offence, a fine of twenty shillings for the
second, and forty shillings for the third offence.[137]
The obligation of the master to a servant-owning and slave-owning
community was recognized in North Carolina in a positive law prohibiting
a master from setting free a negro or mulatto on any pretence whatsoever,
except for meritorious services to be judged and allowed by the
County Court, and even in this case a license was to be previously
obtained.[138] In Massachusetts Bay servants were not to be set free
until they had served out their time.[139] In Connecticut a slave set
free was to be maintained by his master if he came to want.[140]
In view of all these restrictions on servants of a personal, industrial,
and political character it seems strange that even any from their number
should have been able, at the expiration of their term of service, to
break away from the spirit of this bondage and reach a higher position
in the social scale; yet many of the redemptioners became in time,
especially at the North, respectable and even prominent members of the
community.[141] The women often married planters[142] and in turn became
the employers of servants. Yet these are the exceptions. For a long time
the redemptioners were considered the off-scourings of English cities,
and they formed a distinct class in the social order lower than their
masters or employers. In view of this fact, a reproach was of necessity
attached to all belonging to the class and to the designation applied to
them. Their descendants ultimately formed the class of poor whites,—the
lowest stratum in the social order whose members were held in contempt
even by the negroes.
It has been said that the redemptioners were found in all the colonies,
though they were more numerous in the Middle and Southern colonies than
in New England. But it was difficult to keep white servants for any
length of time in a country where land was cheap and the servant soon in
turn became a master.[143] It was undoubtedly this difficulty that led to
the substitution for white servants of Indians and negro slaves. Indian
servants were apparently more numerous in the New England colonies, while
negro slavery gained its strongest foothold in the South.
The employment of Indians as servants grew up naturally in New England
and was continued for at least a hundred years.[144] Their presence was
regarded as almost providential by the New Englanders, hard pressed
for assistance in house and field. When the question of the right and
wrong of the matter was suggested by the troubled conscience, an easy
answer was found: was it not sin to suffer them longer to maintain the
worship of the devil when they were needed so sorely as slaves?[145] But
like the redemptioners, their service so eagerly sought often proved
unsatisfactory. Hugh Peter wrote to John Winthrop, September 4, 1639,
“My wife desires my daughter to send to Hanna that was her mayd, now
at Charltowne, to know if shee would dwell with vs, for truly wee are
so destitute (hauing now but an Indian) that wee know not what to
doe.”[146] More unfortunate still was the young clergyman, the Rev. Peter
Thatcher. He records in his diary at Barnstable, May 7, 1679, “I bought
an Indian of Mr. Checkley and was to pay 5£ a month after I received her
and five pound more in a quarter of a year.” A week later he writes,
“Came home and found my Indian girl had liked to have knocked my Theodora
on head by letting her fall, whereupon I took a good walnut stick and
beat the Indian to purpose till she promised to do so no more.”[147]
In every section negro slavery grew up side by side with white and Indian
slavery,[148] though its hold even upon the South was far from strong
until the end of the seventeenth century. It is both unnecessary and
impossible to discuss in this place the question of slavery[149] and its
relation to the larger subject of service. The close of the colonial
period saw it firmly established at the South, where it supplanted the
system of white servitude, while at the North both black and white
slavery gave place to free labor.
The details of the history of domestic service during the colonial
period may seem unnecessary to an understanding of domestic service as
it is to-day, but an examination of them must show the existence during
that period of principles and conditions that must modify the judgment
concerning the conditions of to-day. No wish is more often expressed than
that it might be possible to return to the Arcadian days when service
was abundant, excellent, and cheap. But those days did not exist in
America during the colonial period. The conditions at that time bear
a marked resemblance to those of to-day. The social position of all
servants was lower than that of their employers, and the gulf between
the two was more difficult to span. Service was difficult to obtain and
unsatisfactory when secured. Servants complained of hard work and ill
treatment, and masters of ungrateful servants and inefficient service,
and both masters and servants were justified in their complaints. The
legal relations between master and servant were explicitly defined as
regards length of service, wages paid, and the mutual obligations of
both parties to the contract during the period of service. But this very
definiteness of the contract was due to the fact that the relationship
between the two parties was an arbitrary one and could not have been
preserved without this legal assistance. In default of a better one,
the system of white servitude may have served its age fairly well; but
its restoration, if the restoration were possible, would do nothing to
relieve in any way the strain and pressure of present conditions.