improvement, and fitness for the duties and blessings of a freeman,
and the growing insolence and rigorous policy of the mother country,
came a wonderful change in the colony. The Negroes were emboldened to
ask for and claim rights as British subjects, and the more humane
element among the whites saw in a relaxation of the severe treatment
of the blacks security and immunity in war. But anti-slavery sentiment
in Massachusetts was not born of a genuine desire to put down a wicked
and cruel traffic in human beings. Two things operated in favor of
humane treatment of the slaves,--an impending war, and the decision of
Lord Mansfield in the Sommersett case. The English government was
yearly increasing the burdens of the colonists. The country was young,
its resources little known. The people were largely engaged in
agricultural pursuits. There were no tariff laws encouraging or
protecting the labor or skill of the people. Civil war seemed
inevitable. Thoughtful men began to consider the question as to which
party the Negroes of the colony would contribute their strength. It
was no idle question to determine whether the Negroes were Tories or
Whigs. As early as 1750 the questions as to the legality of holding
Negroes in slavery in British colonies began to be discussed in
England and New England. "What, precisely, the English law might be on
the subject of slavery, still remained a subject of doubt."[358] Lord
Holt held that slavery was a condition unknown to English law,--that
the being in England was evidence of freedom. This embarrassed
New-England planters in taking their slaves to England. The planters
banded for their common cause, and secured the written opinion of
Yorke and Talbot, attorney and solicitor general of England. They held
that slaves _could_ be held in England as well as in America; that
baptism did not confer freedom: and the opinion stood as sound law for
nearly a half-century.[359] The men in England who lived on the money
wrung from the slave-trade, the members of the Royal African Company,
came to the rescue of the institution of slavery. In order to maintain
it by law in the American colonies, it had to be recognized in
England. The people of Massachusetts took a lively interest in the
question. In 1761, at a meeting "in the old court-house," James
Otis,[360] in a speech against the "writs of assistance," struck a
popular chord on the questions of "The Rights of the Colonies,"
afterwards published (1764) by order of the Legislature. He took the
broad ground, "that the colonists, black and white, born here, are
free-born British subjects and entitled to all the essential rights of
such."[361] In 1766 Nathaniel Appleton and James Swan distinguished
themselves in their defence of the doctrines of "liberty for all." It
became the general topic of discussion in private and public, and
country lyceums and college societies took it up as a subject of
forensic disputation.[362] In the month of May, 1766, the
representatives of the people were instructed to advocate the total
abolition of slavery. And on the 16th of March, 1767, a resolution was
offered to see whether the instructions should be adhered to, and was
unanimously carried in the affirmative. But it should be remembered
that British troops were in the colony, in the streets of Boston. The
mutterings of the distant thunder of revolution could be heard. Public
sentiment was greatly tempered toward the Negroes. On the 31st of May,
1609, the House of Representatives of Massachusetts resolved against
the presence of troops, and besought the governor to remove them. His
Excellency disclaimed any power under the circumstances to interfere.
The House denounced a standing army in time of peace, without the
consent of the General Court, as "without precedent, and
unconstitutional."[363] In 1769 one of the courts of Massachusetts
gave a decision friendly to a slave, who was the plaintiff. This
stimulated the Negroes to an exertion for freedom. The entire colony
was in a feverish state of excitement. An anonymous Tory writer
reproached Bostonians for desiring freedom when they themselves
enslaved others.
"'What!' cries our good people here, 'Negro slaves in
Boston! It cannot be.' It is nevertheless true. For though
the Bostonians have grounded their rebellion on the
'immutable laws of nature,' yet, notwithstanding their
resolves about freedom in their Town-meetings, they actually
have in town 2,000 Negro slaves."[364]
These trying and exasperating circumstances were but the friendly
precursors of a spirit of universal liberty.
In England the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Sommersett[365] case
had encouraged the conscientious few who championed the cause of the
slave. Charles Stewart, Esq., of Boston, Mass., had taken to London
with him his Negro slave, James Sommersett. The Negro was seized with
a sickness in the British metropolis, and was thereupon abandoned by
his master. He afterwards regained his health, and secured employment.
His master, learning of his whereabouts, had him arrested, and placed
in confinement on board the vessel "Ann and Mary," Capt. John Knowls,
commander, then lying in the Thames, but soon to sail for Jamaica,
where Sommersett was to be sold.
"On the 3rd of Dec., 1771, affidavits were made by Thomas
Walklin, Elizabeth Cade, and John Marlow, that James
Sommersett, a Negro, was confined in irons on board a ship
called the _Ann_ and _Mary_, John Knowls commander, lying in
the Thames, and bound for Jamaica. Lord Mansfield, upon the
prayer of the above subscribers, allowed a writ of _habeas
corpus_, requiring the return of the body of Sommersett
before his lordship with an explanation of the cause of his
detention. On the 9th of Dec., Capt. Knowls produced the
body of Sommersett in Court. Lord Mansfield, after a
preliminary examination, referred the matter to the Court of
King's Bench, and, therefore, took sureties, and bound
Sommersett over 'till 'the 2nd day of the next Hillary
term.' At the time appointed the defendant with counsel, the
reputed master of the Negro man Sommersett, and Capt. John
Knowls, appeared before the court. Capt. Knowls recited the
reasons that led him to detain Sommersett: whereupon the
counsel for the latter asked for time in which to prepare an
argument against the return. Lord Mansfield gave them until
the 7th of February. At the time appointed Mr. Sergeant Davy
and Mr. Sergeant Glynn argued against the return, and had
further argument 'postponed' till Easter term,' when Mr.
Mansfield, Mr. Alleyne, and Mr. Hargrave argued on the same
side. 'The only question before us is whether the cause on
the return is sufficient. If it is, the Negro must be
remanded; if it is not, he must be discharged. The return
states that the slave departed and refused to serve,
whereupon he was kept to be sold abroad. So high an act of
dominion must be recognized by the law of the country where
it is used. The power of a master over his slave has been
exceedingly different in different countries. The state of
slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being
introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by
positive law, which preserves its force long after the
reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was
created is erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing
can be suffered to support it but positive law. Whatever
inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I
cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of
England, and therefore the black must be discharged.'"
The influence of this decision was wide-spread, and hurtful to slavery
in the British colonies in North America. It poured new life into the
expiring hopes of the Negroes, and furnished a rule of law for the
advocates of "freedom for all." It raised a question of law in all the
colonies as to whether the colonial governments could pass an Act
legalizing that which was "contrary to English law."[366]
Notwithstanding the general and generous impulse for liberty, the
indissoluble ties of avarice, and the greed for the unearned gains of
the slave-trade, made public men conservate to conserve the interests
of those directly interested in the inhuman traffic.
"In an age when the interests of trade guided legislation,
this branch of commerce possessed paramount attractions. Not
a statesman exposed its enormities; and, if Richard Baxter
echoed the opinions of Puritan Massachusetts, if Southern
drew tears by the tragic tale of Oronooko, if Steele
awakened a throb of indignation by the story of Inkle and
Yarico, if Savage and Shenstone pointed their feeble
couplets with the wrongs of 'Afric's sable children,' if the
Irish metaphysician Hutcheson, struggling for a higher
system of morals,--justly stigmatized the traffic; yet no
public opinion lifted its voice against it. English ships,
fitted out in English cities, under the special favor of the
royal family, of the ministry, and of parliament, stole from
Africa, in the years from 1700 to 1750, probably a million
and a half of souls, of whom one-eighth were buried in the
Atlantic, victims of the passage; and yet in England no
general indignation rebuked the enormity; for the public
opinion of the age was obedient to materialism."[367]
Humane masters who desired to emancipate their slaves were embarrassed
by a statute unfriendly to manumission. The Act of 1703[368] deterred
many persons from emancipating their slaves on account of its unjust
and hard requirements. And under it quite a deal of litigation arose.
It required every master who desired to liberate his slave, before
doing so, to furnish a bond to the treasurer of the town or place in
which he resided, in a sum not less than fifty pounds.[369] This was
to indemnify the town or place in case the Negro slave thus
emancipated should, through lameness or sickness, become a charge. In
case a master failed to furnish such security, his emancipated slaves
were still contemplated by the law as in bondage, "notwithstanding any
manumission or instrument of freedom to them made or given." Judge
Sewall, in a letter to John Adams, cites a case in point.
"A man, by will, gives his Negro his liberty, and leaves him
a legacy. The executor consents that the Negro shall be
free, but refuseth to give bond to the selectmen to
indemnify the town against any charge for his support in
case he should become poor (without which, by the province
law, he is not manumitted), or to pay him the legacy.
_Query_. Can he recover the legacy, and how?
I have just observed that in your last you desire me to say
something towards discouraging you from removing to
Providence; and you say, any thing will do. At present, I
only say, you will do well enough where you are. I will
explain myself, and add something further, in some future
letter. I have not time to enlarge now, for which I believe
you will not be inconsolably grieved. So, to put you out of
pain, your hearty friend,
JONATHAN SEWALL."[370]
Mr. Adams replied as follows:--
"Now. _En mesure le manner_. The testator intended plainly
that his negro should have his liberty and a legacy;
therefore the law will presume that he intended his executor
should do all that without which he could have neither. That
this indemnification was not in the testator's mind, cannot
be proved from the will any more than it could be proved, in
the first case above, that the testator did not know a fee
simple would pass a will without the word heirs; nor than,
in the second case, that the devise of a trust, that might
continue forever, would convey a fee-simple without the like
words. I take it, therefore, that the executor of this will
is, by implication, obliged to give bonds to the town
treasurer, and, in his refusal, is a wrongdoer; and I cannot
think he ought to be allowed to take advantage of his own
wrong, so much as to allege this want of an indemnification
to evade an action of the case brought for the legacy by the
negro himself.
But why may not the negro bring a special action of the case
against the executor, setting forth the will, the devise of
freedom and a legacy, and then the necessity of
indemnification by the province law, and then a refusal to
indemnify, and, of consequence, to set free and to pay the
legacy?
Perhaps the negro is free at common law by the devise. Now,
the province law seems to have been made only to oblige the
master to maintain his manumitted slave, and not to declare
a manumission in the master's lifetime, or at his death,
void. Should a master give his negro his freedom, under his
hand and seal, without giving bond to the town, and should
afterwards repent and endeavor to recall the negro into
servitude, would not that instrument be a sufficient
discharge against the master?"[371]
It is pleaded in extenuation of this Act, that it was passed to put a
stop to the very prevalent habit of emancipating old and decrepit
Negroes after there was no more service in them. If this be true, it
reveals a practice more cruel than slavery itself.
In 1702 the representatives of the town of Boston were "desired to
promote the encouraging the bringing of White servants and to put a
period to Negroes being slaves."[372] This was not an anti-slavery
measure, as some have wrongly supposed.[373] It was not a resolution
or an Act: it was simply a request; and one that the "Representatives"
did not grant for nearly a century afterwards.
"In 1718, a committee of both Houses prepared a bill
entitled 'An Act for the Encouraging the Importation of
White Male Servants, and the preventing the Clandestine
bringing in of Negroes and Molattoes.'"
It was read in Council a first time on the 16th of June, and "sent
down recommended" to the House; where it was also read a first time on
the same day. The next day it was read a second time, and, "on the
question for a third reading, decided in the negative."[374] In 1706
an argument or "Computation that the Importation of Negroes is not so
profitable as that of White Servants," was published in Boston.[375]
It throws a flood of light upon the Act mentioned above, and shows
that the motives that inspired the people who wanted a period put to
the holding of Negroes as slaves were grossly material and selfish. It
was the first published article on the subject, and is worthy of
reproduction in full. It is reprinted from "The Boston News-Letter,"
No. 112, June 10, 1706, in the New-York Historical Society.
"By last Year's Bill of Mortality for the Town of _Boston_,
in _Number 100 News-Letter_, we are furnished with a List of
44 Negroes dead last year, which being computed one with
another at 30_l._ per Head, amounts to the Sum of One
Thousand three hundred and Twenty Pounds, of which we would
make this Remark: That the Importing of Negroes into this or
the Neighboring Provinces is not so beneficial either to the
Crown or Country, as White Servants would be.
"For Negroes do not carry Arms to defend the Country as
Whites do.
"Negroes are generally Eye-Servants, great Thieves, much
addicted to Stealing, Lying and Purloining.
"They do not People our Country as Whites would do whereby
we should be strengthened against an Enemy.
"By Encouraging the Importing of White Men Servants,
allowing somewhat to the Importer, most Husbandmen in the
Country might be furnished with Servants for 8, 9, or 10_l._
a Head, who are not able to launch out 40 or 50_l._ for a
Negro the now common Price.
"A Man then might buy a White Man Servant we suppose for
10_l._ to serve 4 years, and Boys for the same price to
Serve 6, 8, or 10 years; If a White Servant die, the Loss
exceeds not 10_l._ but if a Negro dies, 'tis a very great
loss to the Husbandman; Three years Interest of the price of
the Negro, will near upon if not altogether purchase a White
Man Servant.
"If necessity call for it, that the Husbandman must fit out
a Man against the Enemy; if he has a Negro he cannot send
him, but if he has a White Servant, 'twill answer the end,
and perhaps save his son at home.
"Were Merchants and Masters Encouraged as already said to
bring in Men Servants, there needed not be such Complaint
against Superiors Impressing our Children to the War, there
would then be Men enough to be had without Impressing.
"The bringing in of such Servants would much enrich this
Province, because Husbandmen would not only be able far
better to manure what Lands are already under Improvement,
but would also improve a great deal more that now lyes waste
under Woods, and enable this Province to set about raising
of Naval Stores, which would be greatly advantageous to the
Crown of England, and this Province.
"For the raising of Hemp here, so as to make Sail-cloth and
Cordage to furnish but our own shipping, would hinder the
Importing it, and save a considerable sum in a year to make
Returns for which we now do, and in time might be
capacitated to furnish England not only with Sail-cloth and
Cordage, but likewise with Pitch, Tar, Hemp, and other
Stores which they are now obliged to purchase in Foreign
Nations.
"Suppose the Government here should allow Forty Shillings
per head for five years, to such as should Import every of
these years 100 White Men Servants, and each to serve 4
years, the cost would be but 200_l._ a year, and a 1000_l._
for the 5 years. The first 100 Servants, being free the 4th
year they serve the 5th for Wages, and the 6th there is 100
that goes out into the Woods, and settles a 100 Families to
Strengthen and Baracado us from the Indians, and also a 100
Families more every year successively.
"And here you see that in one year the Town of Boston has
lost 1320_l._ by 44 Negroes, which is also a loss to the
Country in general, and for a less loss (if it may
improperly be so called) for a 1000_l._ the Country may have
500 Men in 5 years time for the 44 Negroes dead in one year.
"A certain person within these 6 years had two Negroes dead
computed both at 60_l._ which would have procured him six
white Servants at 10_l._ per head to have Served 24 years,
at 4 years apiece, without running such a great risque, and
the Whites would have strengthened the Country, that Negroes
do not.
"'Twould do well that none of those Servants be liable to be
Impressed during their Service of Agreement at their first
Landing.
"That such Servants being Sold or Transported out of this
Province during the time of their Service, the Person that
buys them be liable to pay 3_l._ into the Treasury."
Comment would be superfluous. It is only necessary for the reader to
note that there is not a humane sentiment in the entire article.
But universal liberty was not without her votaries. All had not bowed
the knee to Baal. The earliest friend of the Indian and the Negro was
the scholarly, pious, and benevolent Samuel Sewall, at one time one of
the judges of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, and afterwards the
chief justice. He hated slavery with a righteous hatred, and early
raised his voice and used his pen against it. He contributed the first
article against slavery printed in the colony. It appeared as a tract,
on the 24th of June, 1700, and was "Printed by Bartholomew Green and
John Allen." It is withal the most remarkable document of its kind we
ever saw. It is reproduced here to show the reader what a learned
Christian judge thought of slavery one hundred and eighty-two years
ago.
"THE SELLING OF JOSEPH A MEMORIAL.
"By the Hon'ble JUDGE SEWALL in New England.
"FORASMUCH _as_ LIBERTY _is in real value next unto Life;
None ought to part with it themselves, or deprive others of
it, but upon most mature consideration._
"The Numerousness of Slaves at this Day in the Province, and
the Uneasiness of them under their Slavery, hath put many
upon thinking whether the Foundation of it be firmly and
well laid; so as to sustain the Vast Weight that is built
upon it. It is most certain that all Men, as they are the
Sons of _Adam_, are Co-heirs, and have equal Right unto
Liberty, and all other outward Comforts of Life. GOD _hath
given the Earth [with all its commodities] unto the Sons of
Adam, Psal., 115, 16. And hath made of one Blood all Nations
of Men, for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath
determined the Times before appointed, and the bounds of
their Habitation: That they should seek the Lord. Forasmuch
then as we are the Offspring of_ GOD, &c. _Acts, 17, 26, 27,
29_. Now, although the Title given by the last ADAM doth
infinitely better Men's Estates, respecting GOD and
themselves; and grants them a most beneficial and inviolable
Lease under the Broad Seal of Heaven, who were before only
Tenants at Will; yet through the Indulgence of GOD to our
First Parents after the Fall, the outward Estate of all and
every of their Children, remains the same as to one another.
So that Originally, and Naturally, there is no such thing as
Slavery. _Joseph_ was rightfully no more a slave to his
Brethren, than they were to him; and they had no more
Authority to _Sell_ him, than they had to _Slay_ him. And if
_they_ had nothing to do to sell him; the _Ishmaelites_
bargaining with them, and paying down Twenty pieces of
Silver, could not make a Title. Neither could _Potiphar_
have any better Interest in him than the _Ishmaelites_ had.
_Gen. 37, 20, 27, 28_. For he that shall in this case plead
_Alteration of Property_, seems to have forfeited a great
part of his own claim to Humanity. There is no proportion
between Twenty Pieces of Silver and LIBERTY. The Commodity
itself is the Claimer. If _Arabian_ Gold be imported in any
quantities, most are afraid to meddle with it, though they
might have it at easy rates; lest it should have been
wrongfully taken from the Owners, it should kindle a fire to
the Consumption of their whole Estate. 'Tis pity there
should be more Caution used in buying a Horse, or a little
lifeless dust, than there is in purchasing Men and Women:
Whereas they are the Offspring of GOD, and their Liberty is,
... _Auro pretiofior Omni._
"And seeing GOD hath said, _He that Stealeth a Man, and
Selleth him, or if he be found in his Hand, he shall surely
be put to Death._ Exod. 21, 16. This Law being of
Everlasting Equity, wherein Man-Stealing is ranked among the
most atrocious of Capital Crimes: What louder Cry can there
be made of that Celebrated Warning
_Caveat Emptor!_
"And all things considered, it would conduce more to the
Welfare of the Province, to have White Servants for a Term
of Years, than to have Slaves for Life. Few can endure to
hear of a Negro's being made free; and indeed they can
seldom use their Freedom well; yet their continual aspiring
after their forbidden Liberty, renders them Unwilling
Servants. And there is such a disparity in their Conditions,
Colour, and Hair, that they can never embody with us, & grow
up in orderly Families, to the Peopling of the Land; but
still remain in our Body Politick as a kind of extravasat
Blood. As many Negro Men as there are among us, so many
empty Places are there in our Train Bands, and the places
taken up of Men that might make Husbands for our Daughters.
And the Sons and Daughters of _New England_ would become
more like _Jacob_ and _Rachel_, if this Slavery were thrust
quite out of Doors. Moreover it is too well known what
Temptations Masters are under, to connive at the
Fornication of their Slaves; lest they should be obliged to
find them Wives, or pay their Fines. It seems to be
practically pleaded that they might be lawless; 'tis thought
much of, that the Law should have satisfaction for their
Thefts, and other Immoralities; by which means, _Holiness to
the Lord_ is more rarely engraven upon this sort of
Servitude. It is likewise most lamentable to think, how in
taking Negroes out of _Africa_, and selling of them here,
That which GOD has joined together, Men do boldly rend
asunder; Men from their Country, Husbands from their Wives,
Parents from their Children. How horrible is the
Uncleanness, Mortality, if not Murder, that the Ships are
guilty of that bring great Crowds of these miserable Men and
Women. Methinks when we are bemoaning the barbarous Usage of
our Friends and Kinsfolk in _Africa_, it might not be
unreasonable to enquire whether we are not culpable in
forcing the _Africans_ to become Slaves amongst ourselves.
And it may be a question whether all the Benefit received by
_Negro_ Slaves will balance the Accompt of Cash laid out
upon them; and for the Redemption of our own enslaved
Friends out of _Africa_. Besides all the Persons and Estates
that have perished there.
"Obj. 1. _These Blackamores are of the Posterity of Cham,
and therefore are under the Curse of Slavery_. Gen. 9, 25,
26, 27.
"_Ans._ Of all Offices, one would not beg this; viz.
Uncall'd for, to be an Executioner of the Vindictive Wrath
of God; the extent and duration of which is to us uncertain.
If this ever was a Commission; How do we know but that it is
long since out of Date? Many have found it to their Cost,
that a Prophetical Denunciation of Judgment against a Person
or People, would not warrant them to inflict that evil. If
it would, _Hazael_ might justify himself in all he did
against his master, and the _Israelites_ from _2 Kings 8,
10, 12_.
"But it is possible that by cursory reading, this Text may
have been mistaken. For _Canaan_ is the Person Cursed three
times over, without the mentioning of _Cham_. Good
Expositors suppose the Curse entailed on him, and that this
Prophesie was accomplished in the Extirpation of the
_Canaanites_, and in the Servitude of the _Gibeonites. Vide
Pareum_. Whereas the Blackmores are not descended of
_Canaan_, but of Cush. Psal. 68, 31. _Princes shall come out
of Egypt_ [Mizraim]. _Ethiopia_ [Cush] _shall soon stretch
out her hands unto God_. Under which Names, all _Africa_ may
be comprehended; and their Promised Conversion ought to be
prayed for. _Jer. 13, 23. Can the Ethiopian change his
Skin?_ This shows that Black Men are the Posterity of
_Cush_. Who time out of mind have been distinguished by
their Colour. And for want of the true, _Ovid_ assigns a
fabulous cause of it.
_Sanguine tum credunt in corpora summa vocato
Æthiopum populos nigrum traxisse colorem_. Metamorph. lib. 2.
"Obj. 2. _The_ Nigers _are brought out of a Pagan Country,
into places where the Gospel is preached_.
"_Ans._ Evil must not be done, that good may come of it. The
extraordinary and comprehensive Benefit accruing to the
Church of God, and to _Joseph_ personally, did not rectify
his Brethren's Sale of him.
"Obj. 3. _The Africans have Wars one with another: Our Ships
bring lawful Captives taken in those wars_.
"_Answ._ For aught is known, their Wars are much such as
were between _Jacob's_ Sons and their Brother _Joseph_. If
they be between Town and Town; Provincial or National: Every
War is upon one side Unjust. An Unlawful War can't make
lawful Captives. And by receiving, we are in danger to
promote, and partake in their Barbarous Cruelties. I am
sure, if some Gentlemen should go down to the _Brewsters_ to
take the Air, and Fish: And a stronger Party from _Hull_
should surprise them, and sell them for Slaves to a Ship
outward bound; they would think themselves unjustly dealt
with; both by Sellers and Buyers. And yet 'tis to be feared,
we have no other Kind of Title to our _Nigers. Therefore all
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you
even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets._
Matt. 7, 12.
"Obj. 4. Abraham _had Servants bought with his money and
born in his House._
"_Ans._ Until the Circumstances of _Abraham's_ purchase be
recorded, no Argument can be drawn from it. In the mean
time, Charity obliges us to conclude, that He knew it was
lawful and good.
"It is Observable that the _Israelites_ were strictly
forbidden the buying or selling one another for Slaves.
_Levit. 25. 39. 46. Jer. 34, 8-22_. And GOD gaged His
Blessing in lieu of any loss they might conceit they
suffered thereby, _Deut._ 15. 18. And since the partition
Wall is broken down, inordinate Self-love should likewise be
demolished. GOD expects that Christians should be of a more
Ingenuous and benign frame of Spirit. Christians should
carry it to all the World, as the _Israelites_ were to carry
it one towards another. And for Men obstinately to persist
in holding their Neighbours and Brethren under the Rigor of
perpetual Bondage, seems to be no proper way of gaining
Assurance that God has given them Spiritual Freedom. Our
Blessed Saviour has altered the Measures of the ancient Love
Song, and set it to a most Excellent New Tune, which all
ought to be ambitious of Learning. _Matt. 5. 43. 44_. _John
13. 34_. These _Ethiopians_, as black as they are, seeing
they are the Sons and Daughters of the First _Adam_, the
Brethren and Sisters of the Last ADAM, and the Offspring of
GOD; They ought to be treated with a Respect agreeable.
"_Servitus perfecta voluntaria, inter Christianum &
Christianum, ex parte servi patientis saepe est licita, quia
est necessaria; sed ex parte domini agentis, & procurando &
exercendo, vix potest esse licita; quia non convenit regulæ
illi generali; Quaecunque volueritis ut faciant vobis
homines, ita & vos facite eis. Matt. 7, 12._
"_Perfecta servitus paenae, non potest jure locum habere,
nisi ex delicto gravi quod ultimum supplicium aliquo modo
meretur: quia Libertas ex naturali æstimatione proxime
accedit ad vitam ipsam, & eidem a multis præferri solet._
"Ames. Cas. Confc. Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Thes. 2. 3."
Judge Sewall's attack on slavery created no little stir in Boston; and
the next year, 1701, Judge John Saffin, an associate of Judge Sewall,
answered it in quite a lengthy paper.[376] Having furnished Judge
Sewall's paper, it is proper that Judge Saffin's reply should likewise
have a place here.
"JUDGE SAFFIN'S REPLY TO JUDGE SEWALL, 1701.
"A Brief and Candid Answer to a late Printed Sheet,
_Entituled_, The Selling of Joseph.
"THAT Honourable and Learned Gentleman, the Author of a
Sheet, Entituled, _The Selling of Joseph, A_ Memorial, seems
from thence to draw this conclusion, that because the Sons
of _Jacob_ did very ill in selling their Brother _Joseph_ to
the _Ishmaelites_, who were Heathens, therefore it is
utterly unlawful to Buy and Sell Negroes, though among
Christians; which Conclusion I presume is not well drawn
from the Premises, nor is the case parallel; for it was
unlawful for the _Israelites_ to Sell their Brethren upon
any account, or pretence whatsoever during life. But it was
not unlawful for the Seed of _Abraham_ to have Bond men, and
Bond women either born in their House, or bought with their
Money, as it is written of _Abraham, Gen. 14. 14._ & 21. 10.
& _Exod. 21. 16._ & _Levit. 25. 44. 45. 46 v._ After the
giving of the law: And in _Josh. 9. 23._ That famous Example
of the _Gibeonites_ is a sufficient proof where there no
other.
"To speak a little to the Gentlemans first Assertion: _That
none ought to part with their Liberty themselves, or deprive
others of it but upon mature consideration_; a prudent
exception, in which he grants, that upon some consideration
a man may be deprived of his Liberty. And then presently in
his next Position or Assertion he denies it, _viz.: It is
most certain, that all men as they are the Sons of_ Adam
_are Coheirs, and have equal right to Liberty, and all other
Comforts of Life_, which he would prove out of _Psal. 115.
16_. _The Earth hath he given to the Children of Men_. True,
but what is all this to the purpose, to prove that all men
have equal right to Liberty, and all outward comforts of
this life; which Position seems to invert the Order that God
hath set in the World, who hath Ordained different degrees
and orders of men, some to be High and Honourable, some to
be Low and Despicable; some to be Monarchs, Kings, Princes
and Governours, Masters and Commanders, others to be
Subjects, and to be Commanded; Servants of sundry sorts and
degrees, bound to obey; yea, some to be born Slaves, and so
to remain during their lives, as hath been proved. Otherwise
there would be a meer parity among men, contrary to that of
the Apostle, I. _Cor. 12 from the 13 to the 26 verse_, where
he sets forth (by way of comparison) the different sorts and
offices of the Members of the Body, indigitating that they
are all of use, but not equal, and of Like dignity. So God
hath set different Orders and Degrees of Men in the World,
both in Church and Common weal. Now, if this Position of
parity should be true, it would then follow that the
ordinary Course of Divine Providence of God in the World
should be wrong, and unjust, (which we must not dare to
think, much less to affirm) and all the sacred Rules,
Precepts and Commands of the Almighty which he hath given
the Sons of Men to observe and keep in their respective
Places, Orders and Degrees, would be to no purpose; which
unaccountably derogate from the Divine Wisdom of the most
High, who hath made nothing in vain, but hath Holy Ends in
all his Dispensations to the Children of men.
"In the next place, this worthy Gentleman makes a large
Discourse concerning the Utility and Conveniency to keep the
one, and inconveniency of the other; respecting white and
black Servants, which conduceth most to the welfare and
benefit of this Province: which he concludes to be white
men, who are in many respects to be preferred before Blacks;
who doubts that? doth it therefore follow, that it is
altogether unlawful for Christians to buy and keep Negro
Servants (for this is the thesis) but that those that have
them ought in Conscience to set them free, and so lose all
the money they cost (for we must not live in any known sin)
this seems to be his opinion; but it is a Question whether
it ever was the Gentleman's practice? But if he could
perswade the General Assembly to make an Act, That all that
have Negroes, and do set them free, shall be Reimbursed out
of the Publick Treasury, and that there shall be no more
Negroes brought into the country; 'tis probable there would
be more of his opinion; yet he would find it a hard task to
bring the Country to consent thereto; for then the Negroes
must be all sent out of the Country, or else the remedy
would be worse than the disease; and it is to be feared that
those Negroes that are free, if there be not some strict
course taken with them by Authority, they will be a plague
to this Country.
"_Again_, If it should be unlawful to deprive them that are
lawful Captives, or Bondmen of their Liberty for Life being
Heathens; it seems to be more unlawful to deprive our
Brethren, of our own or other Christian Nations of the
Liberty, (though but for a time) by binding them to Serve
some Seven, Ten, Fifteen, and some Twenty Years, which oft
times proves for their whole Life, as many have been; which
in effect is the same in Nature, though different in the
time, yet this was allow'd among the _Jews_ by the Law of
God; and is the constant practice of our own and other
Christian Nations in the World: the which our Author by his
Dogmatical Assertions doth condem as Irreligious; which is
Diametrically contrary to the Rules and Precepts which God
hath given the diversity of men to observe in their
respective Stations, Callings, and Conditions of Life, as
hath been observed.
"And to illustrate his Assertion our Author brings in by way
of Comparison the Law of God against man Stealing, on pain
of Death: Intimating thereby, that Buying and Selling of
Negro's is a breach of that Law, and so deserves Death: A
severe Sentence: But herein he begs the Question with a
_Caveat Emptor_. For, in that very Chapter there is a
Dispensation to the People of _Israel_, to have Bond men,
Women and Children, even of their own Nation in some case;
and Rules given therein to be observed concerning them;
Verse the 4_th_. And in the before cited place, _Levit 25.
44, 45, 46_. Though the _Israelites_ were forbidden
(ordinarily) to make Bond men and Women of their own Nation,
but of Strangers they might: the words run thus, verse 44.
_Both thy Bond men, and thy Bond maids which thou shall have
shall be of the Heathen, that are round about you: of them
shall you Buy Bond men and Bond maids, &c_. See also, I
_Cor. 12, 13_. Whether we be Bond or Free, which shows that
in the times of the New Testament, there were Bond men also,
&c.
"_In fine_, The sum of this long Haurange, is no other, than
to compare the Buying and Selling of Negro's unto the
Stealing of Men, and the Selling of _Joseph_ by his
Brethren, which bears no proportion therewith, nor is there
any congruiety therein, as appears by the foregoing Texts.
"Our Author doth further proceed to answer some Objections
of his own framing, which he supposes some might raise.
"Object. 1. _That these Blackamores are of the Posterity of_
Cham, _and therefore under the Curse of Slavery. Gen. 9. 25,
26, 27._ The which the Gentleman seems to deny, saying,
_they ware the Seed of Canaan that were Cursed, &c._
"_Answ._ Whether they were so or not, we shall not dispute:
this may suffice, that not only the seed of _Cham_ or
_Canaan_, but any lawful Captives of other Heathen Nations
may be made Bond men as hath been proved.
"Obj. 2. _That the Negroes are brought out of Pagan
Countreys into places where the Gospel is preached._ To
which he Replies, _that we must not doe Evil that Good may
come of it_.
"_Ans._ To which we answer, That it is no Evil thing to
bring them out of their own Heathenish Country, where they
may have the knowledge of the True God, be Converted and
Eternally saved.
"Obj. 3. _The_ Affricans _have Wars one with another_; our
Ships bring lawful Captives taken in those Wars.
"To which our Author answers Conjecturally, and Doubtfully,
_for aught we know_, that which may or may not be; which is
insignificant, and proves nothing. He also compares the
Negroes Wars, one Nation with another, with the Wars between
_Joseph_ and his Brethren. But where doth he read of any
such War? We read indeed of a Domestick Quarrel they had
with him, they envyed and hated _Joseph_; but by what is
Recorded, he was meerly passive and meek as a Lamb. This
Gentleman farther adds, _That there is not any War but is
unjust on one side, &c._ Be it so, what doth that signify:
We read of lawful Captives taken in the Wars, and lawful to
be Bought and Sold without contracting the guilt of the
_Agressors_; for which we have the example of _Abraham_
before quoted; but if we must stay while both parties
Warring are in the right, there would be no lawful Captives
at all to be Bought; which seems to be rediculous to
imagine, and contrary to the tenour of Scripture, and all
Humane Histories on that subject.
"Obj. 4. _Abraham had Servants bought with his Money, and
born in his House. Gen. 14. 14._ To which our worthy Author
answers, _until the Circumstances of Abraham's purchase be
recorded, no Argument can be drawn from it_.
"_Ans._ To which we Reply, this is also Dogmatical, and
proves nothing. He farther adds, _In the mean time Charity
Obliges us to conclude, that he knew it was lawful and
good_. Here the gentleman yields the case; for if we are in
Charity bound to believe _Abrahams_ practice, in buying and
keeping _Slaves_ in his house to be lawful and good: then it
follows, that our Imitation of him in this his Moral Action,
is as warrantable as that of his Faith; _who is the Father
of all them that believe. Rom. 4. 16._
"In the close all, Our Author Quotes two more places of
Scripture, _viz., Levit. 25. 46_, and _Jer. 34._ from the 8.
to the 22. _v_. To prove that the people of Israel were
strictly forbidden the Buying and Selling one another for
_Slaves_: who questions that? and what is that to the case
in hand? What a strange piece of Logick is this? 'Tis
unlawful for Christians to Buy and Sell one another for
slaves. _Ergo_, It is unlawful to Buy and Sell Negroes that
are lawful Captiv'd Heathens.
"And after a Serious Exhortation to us all to Love one
another according to the Command of Christ _Math. 5, 43,
44_. This worthy Gentleman concludes with this Assertion,
_That these Ethiopians as Black as they are, seeing they are
the Sons and Daughters of the first_ Adam; _the Brethren and
Sisters of the Second_ Adam, _and the Offspring of God; we
ought to treat them with a respect agreeable_.
"_Ans._ We grant it for a certain and undeniable verity,
That all Mankind are the Sons and Daughters of _Adam_, and
the Creatures of God: But it doth not therefore follow that
we are bound to love and respect all men alike; this under
favour we must take leave to deny, we ought in charity, if
we see our Neighbour in want, to relieve them in a regular
way, but we are not bound to give them so much of our
Estates, as to make them equal with ourselves, because they
are our Brethren, the Sons of _Adam_, no, not our own
natural Kinsmen: We are Exhorted _to do good unto all, but
especially to them who are of the Household of Faith, Gal.
6. 10_. And we are to love, honour and respect all men
according to the gift of God that is in them. I may love my
Servant well, but my Son better; Charity begins at home, it
would be a violation of common prudence, and a breach of
good manners, to treat a Prince like a Peasant. And this
worthy Gentleman would deem himself much neglected, if we
should show him no more Defference than to an ordinary
Porter: And therefore these florid expressions, the Sons and
Daughters of the First _Adam_, the Brethren and Sisters of
the Second _Adam_, and the Offspring of God, seem to be
misapplied to import and insinuate, that we ought to tender
Pagan Negroes with all love, kindness, and equal respect as
to the best of men.
"By all which it doth evidently appear both by Scripture and
Reason, the practice of the People of God in all Ages, both
before and after the giving of the Law, and in the times of
the Gospel, that there were Bond men, Women and Children
commonly kept by holy and good men, and improved in Service;
and therefore by the Command of God, _Lev. 25, 44_, and
their venerable Example, we may keep Bond men, and use them
in our Service still; yet with all candour, moderation and
Christian prudence, according to their state and condition
consonant to the Word of God."
Judge Sewall had dealt slavery a severe blow, and opened up an
agitation on the subject that was felt during the entire Revolutionary
struggle. He became the great apostle of liberty, the father of the
anti-slavery movement in the colony. He was the bold and stern John
the Baptist of that period, "the voice of one crying in the
wilderness" of bondage, to prepare the way for freedom.
The Quakers, or Friends as they were called, were perhaps the earliest
friends of the slaves, but, like Joseph of Arimathæa, were "secretly"
so, for fear of the "Puritans." But they early recorded their
disapprobation of slavery as follows:--
_26th day of y'e 9th mo. 1716._
"An epistle from the last Quarterly Meeting was read in
this, and y'e matter referred to this meeting, viz., whether
it is agreeable to truth for friends to purchase slaves and
keep them term of liffe, was considered, and y'e sense and
judgment of this meeting is, that it is not agreeable to
truth for friends to purchase slaves and hold them term of
liffe.
"Nathaniel Starbuck, jun'r is to draw out this meeting's
judgment concerning friends not buying slaves and keeping
them term of liffe, and send it to the next Quarterly
Meeting, and to sign it in y'e meeting's behalf."[377]
Considering the prejudice and persecution that pursued this good
people, their testimony against slavery is very remarkable. In 1729-30
Elihu Coleman of Nantucket, a minister of the society of Friends,
wrote a book against slavery, published in 1733, entitled, "_A
Testimony against that Anti-Christian Practice of_ MAKING SLAVES
OF MEN.[378] It was well written, and the truth fearlessly told
for the conservative, self-seeking period he lived in. He says,--
"I am not unthoughtful of the ferment or stir that such
discourse as this may make among some, who (like Demetrius
of old) may say, by this craft we have our wealth, which
caused the people to cry out with one voice, great is Diana
of the Ephesians, whom all Asia and the world worship."
He examined and refuted the arguments put forth in defence of slavery,
charged slaveholders with idleness, and contended that slavery was the
mother of vice, at war with the laws of nature and of God. Others
caught the spirit of reform, and the agitation movement gained
recruits and strength every year. Felt says, "1765. Pamphlets and
newspapers discuss the subjects of slavery with increasing zeal." The
colonists were aroused. Men were taking one side or the other of a
question of great magnitude. In 1767 an anonymous tract of twenty
octavo pages against slavery made its appearance in Boston. It was
written by Nathaniel Appleton, a co-worker with Otis, and an advanced
thinker on the subject of emancipation. It was in the form of a letter
addressed to a friend, and was entitled, "Considerations on Slavery."
The Rev. Samuel Webster Salisbury published on the 2d of March, 1769,
"An Earnest Address to my Country on Slavery." He opened his article
with an argument showing the inconsistency of a Christian people
holding slaves, pictured the evil results of slavery, and then
asked,--
"What then is to be done? Done! for God's sake break every
yoke and let these oppressed ones _go free without
delay_--let them taste the sweets of that _liberty_, which
we so highly prize, and are so earnestly supplicating God
and man to grant us: nay, which we claim as the natural
right of every man. Let me beseech my countrymen to put on
bowels of compassion for these their _brethren_ (for so I
must call them,) yea, let me beseech you for your own sake
and for God's sake, _to break every yoke_ and let the
oppressed go free."[379]
Begun among the members of the bar and the pulpit, the common folk at
length felt a lively interest in the subject of emancipation. An
occasional burst of homely, vigorous eloquence from the pulpit on the
duties of the hour inflamed the conscience of the pew with a noble
zeal for a righteous cause. The afflatus of liberty sat upon the
people as cloven tongues. Every village, town, and city had its
orators whose only theme was emancipation. "The pulpit and the press
were not silent, and sermons and essays in behalf of the enslaved
Africans were continually making their appearance." The public
conscience was being rapidly educated, and from the hills of Berkshire
to the waters of Massachusetts Bay the fires of liberty were burning.
FOOTNOTES:
[260] George H. Moore, LL.D., for many years librarian of the New-York
Historical Society, but at present the efficient superintendent of the
Lenox Library, in his "Notes on the History of Slavery in
Massachusetts," has summoned nearly all the orators and historians of
Massachusetts to the bar of history. He leaves them open to one of
three charges, viz., evading the truth, ignorance of it, or falsifying
the record. And in addition to this work, which is authority, his
"Additional Notes" glow with an energy and perspicuity of style which
lead me to conclude that Dr. Moore works admirably under the spur, and
that his refined sarcasm, unanswerable logic, and critical accuracy
give him undisputed place amongst the ablest writers of our times.
[261] Wood's New-England Prospect, 1634, p. 77.
[262] Slavery in Mass., p. 7.
[263] Ibid., pp. 4, 5, and 6.
[264] Elliott's New-England Hist., pp. 167-205.
[265] Winthrop's Journal, Feb. 26, 1638, vol. i. p. 254; see, also,
Felt, vol. ii. p. 230.
[266] Dr. Moore backs his statement as to the time The Desire was
built by quoting from Winthrop, vol. i. p. 193. But there is a mistake
somewhere as to the correct date. Winthrop says she was built in 1636;
but I find in Mr. Drake's "Founders of New England," pp. 31, 32, this
entry: "More (June) XXth, 1635. In the Desire de Lond. Pearce, and
bond for New Eng. p'r cert, fro ij Justices of Peace and ministers of
All Saints lionian in Northampton." If she sailed in 1635, she must
have been built earlier.
[267] Dr. George H. Moore says Josselyn's Voyages were printed in
1664. This is an error. They were not published until ten years later,
in 1674. In 1833 the Massachusetts Historical Society printed the work
in the third volume and third series of their collection.
[268] Josselyn, p. 28.
[269] Ibid., p. 250.
[270] Ibid., p. 258.
[271] Slavery in Mass., p. 9.
[272] Mass. Hist Coll., vol. iv. 4th Series, p. 333, _sq._
[273] Mr. Bancroft (Centenary Edition, vol. i. p. 137) says, "The
earliest importation of Negro slaves into New England was made in
1637, from Providence Isle, in the Salem ship Desire." But Winthrop
(vol. i. p. 254, under date of the 26th of February, 1638) says, "The
Desire returned from the West Indies after seven months." He also
states (ibid., p. 193) that The Desire was "built at Marblehead in
1636." But this may or may not be true according to the old method of
keeping time.
[274] Palfrey's Hist. of N.E., vol. ii. p. 30, note.
[275] Josselyn, p. 257.
[276] Elliott's New-England Hist., vol. ii. pp. 57, 58.
[277] Hildreth, vol. i, p. 270, _sq_.
[278] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., pp. 52, 23.
[279] Slavery in Mass., p. 13, note.
[280] Slavery in Mass., pp. 18, 19.
[281] Ibid., p. 12.
[282] Elliott's New-England Hist., vol. i. p. 383.
[283] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 278.
[284] Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. iv. 4th Series, p. 334.
[285] Quoted by Dr. Moore, p. 20.
[286] Commonwealth _vs_. Aves, 18 Pickering, p. 208.
[287] Andover _vs_. Canton, Mass. Reports, 551, 552, quoted by Dr.
Moore.
[288] Kendall's Travels, vol. ii. p. 179.
[289] The following note, if it refers to the kidnapped Negroes, gives
an earlier date,--"29th May, 1644. Mr. Blackleach his petition about
the Mores was consented to, to be committed to the eld'rs, to enforme
us of the mind of God herein, & then further to consider it."--_Mass.
Records_, vol. ii. p. 67.
[290] Bancroft, Centennial edition, vol. i. p. 137.
[291] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 282.
[292] The petition is rather a remarkable paper, and is printed below.
It is evident that the judge was in earnest. And yet the court, while
admitting the petition, tried the case on only one ground,
man-stealing.
_To the honored general court._
The oath I took this yeare att my enterance upon the place
of assistante was to this effect: That I would truly
endeavour the advancement of the gospell and the good of the
people of this plantation (to the best of my skill)
dispencing justice equally and impartially (according to the
laws of God and this land) in all cases wherein I act by
virtue of my place. I conceive myself called by virtue of my
place to act (according to this oath) in the case concerning
the negers taken by captain Smith and Mr. Keser; wherein it
is apparent that Mr. Keser gave chace to certaine negers;
and upon the same day tooke divers of them; and at another
time killed others; and burned one of their townes. Omitting
several misdemeanours, which accompanied these acts above
mentioned, I conceive the acts themselves to bee directly
contrary to these following laws (all of which are capitall
by the word of God; and two of them by the lawes of this
jurisdiction).
The act (or acts) of murder (whether by force or fraude) are
expressly contrary both to the law of God, and the law of
this country.
The act of stealing negers, or taking them by force (Whether
it be considered as theft or robbery) is (as I conceive)
expressly contrary, both to the law of God, and the law of
this country.
_The act of chaceing the negers (as aforesayde) upon the
sabbath day (being a servile worke and such as cannot be
considered under any other heade) is expressly capitall by
the law of God._
These acts and outrages being committed where there was noe
civill government, which might call them to accompt, and the
persons, by whom they were committed beeing of our
jurisdiction, I conceive this court to bee the ministers of
God in this case, and therefore my humble request is that
the severall offenders may be imprisoned by the order of
this court, and brought into their deserved censure in
convenient time; and this I humbly crave that soe the sinn
they have committed may be upon their own heads, and not
upon ourselves (as otherwise it will.)
Yrs in all christean observance,
Richard Saltonstall.
The house of deputs thinke meete that this petition shall be
granted, and desire our honored magistrats concurrence
herein.
Edward Rawson.
--Coffin's _Newbury_, pp. 335, 336.
[293] Laws Camb., 1675, p. 15.
[294] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 368.
[295] Coffin, p. 335.
[296] Drake (p. 288) says, "This act, however, was afterwards repealed
or disregarded."
[297] Mass. Records, vol ii. p 129.
[298] Moore, Appendix, 251, _sq._
[299] Slavery in Mass., p. 30.
[300] Hildreth, vol. i. p, 282.
[301] Slavery in Mass., p. 49. See, also, Drake's Boston, p. 441,
note.
[302] Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. viii. 3d Series, p. 337.
[303] Slavery in Mass., p. 50.
[304] Coll. Amer. Stat. Asso., vol. i. p. 586.
[305] Douglass's British Settlements, vol. i. p. 531.
[306] Drake, p. 714. I cannot understand how Dr. Moore gets 1,514
slaves in Boston in 1742, except from Douglass. His "1742" should read
1752, and his "1,514" slaves should read 1,541 slaves.
[307] "There is a curious illustration of 'the way of putting it' in
Massachusetts, in Mr. Felt's account of this 'census of slaves,' in
the Collections of the American Statistical Association, vol. i. p,
208. He says that the General Court passed this order 'for the purpose
of having an accurate account of slaves in our Commonwealth, _as a
subject in which the people were becoming much interested, relative to
the cause of liberty!_" There is not a particle of authority for this
suggestion--such a motive for their action never existed anywhere but
in the imagination of the writer himself!"--_Slavery in Mass_., p. 51,
note.
[308] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 748.
[309] Ibid.
[310] Slavery in Mass., p. 61.
[311] Hildreth, vol. ii. pp. 269, 270.
[312] Drake's Boston, p. 574.
[313] Spectator, No. 215, Nov. 6, 1711.
[314] Slavery in Mass., p. 64.
[315] "In the inventory of the estate of Samuel Morgaridge, who died
in 1754, I find,
'Item, three negroes £133, 6_s._, 8_d._
Item, flax £12, 2_s._, 8.'
"In the inventory of Henry Rolfe's estate, taken in April, 1711, I
find the following, namely,
'Fifteen sheep, old and young £3, 15_s._
An old gun 2
An old Negroe man 10 0
--------
£13 7_s._'"
--COFFIN, p. 188.
[316] Slavery in Mass., pp. 64, 65.
[317] Drake, 583, note.
[318] Here is a sample of the sales of those days: "In 1716, Rice
Edwards, of Newbury, shipwright, sells to Edmund Greenleaf 'my whole
personal estate with all my goods and chattels as also _one negro
man_, one cow, three pigs with timber, plank, and boards."--COFFIN, p.
337.
[319] New-England Weekly Journal, No. 267, May 1, 1732.
[320] A child one year and a half old--a nursing child sold from the
bosom of its mother!--and _for life!_--COFFIN, p. 337.
[321] Slavery in Mass., p. 96. Note.
[322] Eight years after this, on the 22d of June, 1735, Mr. Plant
records in his diary: "I wrote Mr. Salmon of Barbadoes to send me a
Negro." (Coffin, p. 338.) It doesn't appear that the reverend
gentleman was opposed to slavery!
[323] Note quoted by Dr. Moore, p. 58.
[324] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 44.
[325] "For they tell the Negroes, that they must believe in Christ,
and receive the Christian faith, and that they must receive the
sacrament, and be baptized, and so they do; but still they keep them
slaves for all this."--MACY'S _Hist. of Nantucket_, pp. 280,
281.
[326] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 117.
[327] Mr. Palfrey relies upon a single reference in Winthrop for the
historical trustworthiness of his statement that a Negro slave could
be a member of the church. He thinks, however, that this "presents a
curious question," and wisely reasons as follows: "As a church-member,
he was eligible to the political franchise, and, if he should be
actually invested with it, he would have a part in making laws to
govern his master,--laws with which his master, if a non-communicant,
would have had no concern except to obey them. But it is improbable
that the Court would have made a slave--while a slave--a member of the
Company, though he were a communicant.--PALFREY, vol. ii. p.
30. Note.
[328] Butts _vs_. Penny, 2 Lev., p. 201; 3 Kib., p. 785.
[329] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 426.
[330] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 748.
[331] Palfrey, vol. ii. p. 30. Note.
[332] Hist. Mag., vol. v., 2d Series, by Dr. G.H. Moore.
[333] Slavery in Mass., p. 57, note.
[334] I use the term freeman, because the colony being under the
English crown, there were no citizens. All were British subjects.
[335] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 746.
[336] Ibid., p. 386.
[337] Mr. Palfrey is disposed to hang a very weighty matter on a very
slender thread of authority. He says, "In the list of men capable of
bearing arms, at Plymouth, in 1643, occurs the name of 'Abraham
Pearse, the Black-moore,' from which we infer ... that Negroes were
not dispensed from military service in that colony" (History of New
England, vol. ii. p. 30, note). This single case is borne down by the
laws and usages of the colonists on this subject. Negroes as a class
were absolutely excluded from the military service, from the
commencement of the colony down to the war with Great Britain.
[338] Slavery in Mass., Appendix, p. 243.
[339] Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. viii. 3d Series, p. 336.
[340] Lyman's Report, 1822.
[341] Mather's Magnalia, Book III., p. 207. Compare also p. 209.
[342] Elliott's New-England Hist., vol. ii. p. 165.
[343] Mr. Palfrey comes again with his single and exceptional case,
asking us to infer a rule therefrom. See History of New England, note,
p. 30.
[344] Chief-Justice Parker, in Andover vs. Canton, 13 Mass. p. 550.
[345] Slavery in Mass., p. 62.
[346] Mott's Sketches, p. 17.
[347] At the early age of sixteen, in the year 1770, Phillis was
baptized into the membership of the society worshipping in the "Old
South Meeting-House." The gifted, eloquent, and noble Dr. Sewall was
the pastor. This was an exception to the rule, that slaves were not
baptized into the Church.
[348] All writers I have seen on this subject--and I think I have seen
all--leave the impression that Miss Wheatley's poems were first
published in London. This is not true. The first published poems from
her pen were issued in Boston in 1770. But it was a mere pamphlet
edition, and has long since perished.
[349] All the historians but Sparks omit the given name of Peters. It
was John.
[350] The date usually given for her death is 1780, while her age is
fixed at twenty-six. The best authority gives the dates above, and I
think they are correct.
[351] "Her correspondence was sought, and it extended to persons of
distinction even in England, among whom may be named the Countess of
Huntingdon, Whitefield, and the Earl of Dartmouth."--SPARKS'S
_Washington_, vol. iii. p. 298, note.
[352] Sparks's Washington, vol iii. p. 299, note.
[353] This destroys the last hope I have nursed for nearly six years
that the poem might yet come to light. Somehow I had overlooked this
note.
[354] Sparks's Washington, vol iii. p. 288.
[355] Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 297, 298.
[356] Armistead's A Tribute to the Negro, pp. 460, 461.
[357] Douglass, vol. ii. p. 345, note.
[358] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 426.
[359] Pearce _vs._ Lisle, Ambler, 76.
[360] It may sound strangely in the ears of some friends and admirers
of the gifted John Adams to hear now, after the lapse of many years,
what he had to say of the position Otis took. His mild views on
slavery were as deserving of scrutiny as those of the elder Quincy.
Mr. Adams says: "Nor were the poor negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in
Philadelphia, or Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, ever asserted the rights
of negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was, and ignorant as I was, I
shuddered at the doctrine he taught; and I have all my lifetime
shuddered, and still shudder, at the consequences that may be drawn
from such premises. Shall we say, that the rights of masters and
servants clash, and can be decided only by force? I adore the idea of
gradual abolitions! But who shall decide how fast or how slowly these
abolitions shall be made?"
[361] Hildreth, vol. ii. pp. 564, 565.
[362] Coffin says, "In October of 1773, an action was brought against
Richard Greenleaf, of Newburyport, by Cæsar [Hendrick], a colored man,
whom he claimed as his slave, for holding him in bondage. He laid the
damages at fifty pounds. The council for the plaintiff, in whose favor
the jury brought in their verdict and awarded him eighteen pounds'
damages and costs, was John Lowell, Esq., afterward Judge Lowell. This
case excited much interest, as it was the first, if not the only one
of the kind, that ever occurred in the county."
[363] Hildreth, vol. ii, pp. 550, 551.
[364] Drake, p. 729, note.
[365] I use the English spelling,--Sommersett.
[366] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 567.
[367] Bancroft, 12th ed. vol. iii. p. 412.
[368] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., pp. 745, 746.
[369] The following is from Felt's Salem, vol. ii. pp. 415, 416, and
illustrates the manner in which the law was complied with: "1713. Ann,
relict of Governor Bradstreet, frees Hannah, a negro servant. 1717,
Dec. 21. William and Samuel Upton, of this town, liberate Thomas, who
has faithfully served their father, John Upton, of Reading. They give
security to the treasurer, that they will meet all charges, which may
accrue against the said black man. 1721, May 27. Elizur Keyser does
the same for his servant, Cato, after four years more, and then the
latter was to receive two suits of clothes.... 1758, June 5. The heirs
of John Turner, having freed two servants, Titus and Rebeckah, give
bonds to the selectmen, that they shall be no public charge."
[370] John Adams's Works, vol. i. p. 51.
[371] Adams's Works, vol. i. p. 55.
[372] Drake, p. 525.
[373] The late Senator Sumner, in a speech delivered on the 28th of
June, 1854, refers to this as "the earliest testimony from any
official body against negro slavery." Even the weight of the senator's
assertion cannot resist the facts of history. The "resolve"
instructing the "representatives" was never carried; but, on the
contrary, the next Act was the law of 1703 restricting manumission!
[374] Journal H. of R., 15, 16. General Court Records, x. 282.
[375] Slavery in Mass., p. 106.
[376] It was thought to be lost for some years, until Dr. George H.
Moore secured a copy from George Brinley, Esq., of Hartford, Conn.,
and reproduced it in his Notes.
[377] History of Nantucket, p. 281.
[378] Coffin, p. 338; also History of Nantucket, pp. 279, 280.
[379] Coffin, p. 338.