THE COLONY OF MARYLAND.
1634-1775.
MARYLAND UNDER THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA UNTIL 1630.--FIRST
LEGISLATION ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION IN 1637-38.--SLAVERY
ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE IN 1663.--THE DISCUSSION OF
SLAVERY.--AN ACT PASSED ENCOURAGING THE IMPORTATION OF
NEGROES AND WHITE SERVANTS IN 1671.--AN ACT LAYING AN IMPOST
ON NEGROES AND WHITE SERVANTS IMPORTED INTO THE
COLONY.--DUTIES IMPOSED ON RUM AND WINE.--TREATMENT OF
SLAVES AND PAPISTS.--CONVICTS IMPORTED INTO THE COLONY.--AN
ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICT-TRADE.--SPIRITED
REPLIES.--THE LAWS OF 1723, 1729, 1752.--RIGHTS OF
SLAVES.--NEGRO POPULATION IN 1728.--INCREASE OF SLAVERY IN
1756.--NO EFFORTS MADE TO PREVENT THE EVILS OF SLAVERY.--THE
REVOLUTION NEARING.--NEW LIFE FOR THE NEGROES.
Up to the 20th of June, 1630, the territory that at present
constitutes the State of Maryland was included within the limits of
the colony of Virginia. During that period the laws of Virginia
obtained throughout the entire territory.
In 1637[414] the first assembly of the colony of Maryland agreed upon
a number of bills, but they never became laws. The list is left, but
nothing more. The nearest and earliest attempt at legislation on the
slavery question to be found is a bill that was introduced "_for
punishment of ill servants_." During the earlier years of the
existence of slavery in Virginia, the term "servant" was applied to
Negroes as well as to white persons. The legal distinction between
slaves and servants was, "servants for a term of years,"--white
persons; and "servants for life,"--Negroes. In the first place, there
can be no doubt but what Negro slaves were a part of the population of
this colony from its organization;[415] and, in the second place, the
above-mentioned bill of 1637 for the "_punishment of ill servants_"
was intended, doubtless, to apply to Negro servants, or slaves. So
few were they in number, that they were seldom referred to as
"slaves." They were "servants;" and that appellation dropped out only
when the growth of slavery as an institution, and the necessity of
specific legal distinction, made the Negro the only person that was
suited to the condition of absolute property.
In 1638 there was a list of bills that reached a second reading, but
never passed. There was one bill "_for the liberties of the people_,"
that declared "all Christian inhabitants (slaves only excepted) to
have and enjoy all such rights, liberties, immunities, privileges and
free customs, within this province, as any natural born subject of
England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the realm of England, by
force or virtue of the common law or statute law of England, saving in
such cases as the same are or may be altered or changed by the laws
and ordinances of this province."[416] There is but one mention made
of "slaves" in the above Act, but in none of the other Acts of 1638.
There are certain features of the Act worthy of special consideration.
The reader should keep the facts before him, that by the laws of
England no Christian could be held in slavery; that in the Provincial
governments the laws were made to conform with those of the home
government; that, in specifying the rights of the colonists, the
Provincial assemblies limited the immunities and privileges conferred
by the Magna Charta upon British subjects, to Christians; that Negroes
were considered heathen, and, therefore, denied the blessings of the
Church and State; that even where Negro slaves were baptized, it was
held by the courts in the colonies, and was the law-opinion of the
solicitor-general of Great Britain, that they were not _ipso facto_
free;[417] and that, where Negroes were free, they had no rights in
the Church or State. So, while this law of 1638 did not say that
Negroes _should_ be slaves, in designating those who were to enjoy the
rights of freemen, it excludes the Negro, and thereby fixes his
condition as a slave by implication. If he were not named as a
freeman, it was the intention of the law-makers that he should remain
a bondman,--the exception to an established rule of law.[418]
In subsequent Acts reference was made to "servants," "fugitives,"
"runaways," etc.; but the first statute in this colony establishing
slavery was passed in 1663. It was "_An Act concerning negroes and
other slaves_." It enacts section one:--
"All negroes or other slaves within the province, and all
negroes and other slaves to be hereafter imported into the
province, shall serve _durante vita_; and all children born
of any negro or other slave, shall be slaves as their
fathers were for the term of their lives."
Section two:--
"And forasmuch as divers freeborn _English_ women, forgetful
of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation,
do intermarry with negro slaves, by which also divers suits
may arise, touching the issue of such women, and a great
damage doth befall the master of such negroes, for
preservation whereof for deterring such free-born women from
such shameful matches, _be it enacted_, &c.: That whatsoever
free-born woman shall intermarry with any slave, from and
after the last day of the present assembly, shall serve the
master of such slave during the life of her husband; and
that all the issue of such free-born women, so married,
shall be slaves as their fathers were."
Section three:--
"And be it further enacted, that all the issues of
_English_, or other free-born women, that have already
married negroes, shall serve the master of their parents,
till they be thirty years of age and no longer."[419]
Section one is the most positive and sweeping statute we have ever
seen on slavery. It fixes the term of servitude for the longest time
man can claim,--the period of his earthly existence,--and dooms the
children to a service from which they were to find discharge only in
death. Section two was called into being on account of the
intermarriage of white women with slaves. Many of these women had been
indentured as servants to pay their passage to this country, some had
been sent as convicts, while still others had been apprenticed for a
term of years. Some of them, however, were very worthy persons. No
little confusion attended the fixing of the legal status of the issue
of such marriages; and it was to deter Englishwomen from such
alliances, and to determine the status of the children before the
courts, that this section was passed. Section three was clearly an _ex
post facto_ law: but the public sentiment of the colony was reflected
in it; and it stood, and was re-enacted in 1676.
Like Virginia, the colony of Maryland found the soil rich, and the
cultivation of tobacco a profitable enterprise. The country was new,
and the physical obstructions in the way of civilization numerous and
formidable. Of course all could not pursue the one path that led to
agriculture. Mechanic and trade folk were in great demand. Laborers
were scarce, and the few that could be obtained commanded high wages.
The Negro slave's labor could be made as cheap as his master's
conscience and heart were small. Cheaper labor became the cry on every
hand, and the Negro was the desire of nearly all white men in the
colony.[420] In 1671 the Legislature passed "_An Act encouraging the
importation of negroes and slaves into_" the colony, which was
followed by another and similar Act in 1692. Two motives inspired the
colony to build up the slave-trade; viz., to have more laborers, and
to get something for nothing. And, as soon as Maryland was known to be
a good market for slaves, the traffic increased with wonderful
rapidity. Slaves soon became the bone and sinew of the working-force
of the colony. They were used to till the fields, to fell the forests,
to assist mechanics, and to handle light crafts along the
water-courses. They were to be found in all homes of opulence and
refinement; and, unfortunately, their presence in such large numbers
did much to lower honorable labor in the estimation of the whites, and
to enervate women in the best white society. While the colonists
persuaded themselves that slavery was an institution indispensable to
the colony, its evil effects soon became apparent. It were impossible
to engage the colony in the slave-trade, and escape the bad results of
such an inhuman enterprise. It made men cruel and avaricious.
It was the motion of individuals to have legislative encouragement
tendered the venders of human flesh and blood; but the time came when
the government of the colony saw that an impost tax upon the slaves
imported into the colony would not impair the trade, while it would
aid the government very materially. In 1696 "_An Act laying an
imposition on negroes, slaves and while persons imported_" into the
colony was passed. It is plain from the reading of the caption of the
above bill, that it was intended to reach three classes of persons;
viz., Negro servants, Negro slaves, and white servants. The word
"imported" means such persons as could not pay their passage, and were
therefore indentured to the master of the vessel. When they arrived,
their time was hired out, if they were free, for a term of years, at
so much per year;[421] but if they were slaves the buyer had to pay
all claims against this species of property before he could acquire a
fee simple in the slave. Some historians have too frequently
misinterpreted the motive and aim of the colonial Legislatures in
imposing an impost tax upon Negroes and other servants imported into
their midst. The fact that the law applied to white persons does not
aid in an interpretation that would credit the makers of the act with
feelings of humanity. A people who could buy and sell wives did not
hesitate to see in the indentured white servants property that ought
to be taxed. Why not? These white servants represented so many dollars
invested, or so many years of labor in prospect! So all persons
imported into the colony of Maryland, "Negroes, slaves, and white
persons," were taxed as any other marketable article. A swift and
remorseless civilization against the stolid forces of nature made men
indiscriminate and cruel in their impulses to obtain. Public sentiment
had been formulated into law: the law contemplated "servants and
slaves" as chattel property; and the political economists of the
Province saw in this species of property rich gains for the
government. It was condition, circumstances, that made the servant or
slave; but at length it was nationality, color.
When, on the threshold of the eighteenth century, "white indentured"
servants were rapidly ceasing to exist under color or sanction of law,
religious bigotry and ecclesiastical intolerance joined hands with the
supporters of Negro slavery in a crusade[422] against the Irish
Catholics. In 1704 the Legislature passed "_An Act imposing three
pence per gallon on rum and wine, brandy and spirits, and twenty
shillings per poll for negroes, for raising a supply to defray the
public charge of this province, and twenty shillings, per poll, on
Irish servants, to prevent the importing too great a number of Irish
papist into this province_." Although this Act was intended to remain
on the statute-books only three years, its life was prolonged by a
supplemental Act, and it disgraced the colony for twenty-one years. As
in New York, so here, the government regarded the slave and Papist
with feelings of hatred and fear. The former was only suited to a
condition of perpetual bondage, the latter to be ostracized and driven
out from before the face of the exclusive Protestants of that period.
Both were cruelly treated; one on account of his face, the other on
account of his faith.
"Unfortunately for the professors of the Catholic religion,
by the force of circumstances which it is not necessary to
detail, their religious persuasions became identified, in
the public mind, with opposition to the principles of the
revolution. Their political disfranchisement was the
consequence. Charles Calvert, the deposed proprietary,
shared the common fate of his Catholic brethren. Sustained
and protected by the crown in the enjoyment of his mere
private rights, the general jealousy of Catholic power
denied him the government of the province."[423]
A knowledge of the antecedents of the master-class will aid the reader
to a more accurate conception of the character of the institution of
slavery in the colony of Maryland.
It is not very pleasing for the student of history at this time to
remember that the British colonies in North America received into
their early life the worst poison of European society,--the criminal
element. From the first the practice of transporting convicts into the
colonies obtained. And, during the reign of George I., statutes were
passed "authorizing transportation as a commutation punishment for
clergyable felonies." These convicts were transported by private
shippers, and then sold into the colony; and thus it became a gainful
enterprise. From 1700 until 1760 this nefarious and pestiferous
traffic greatly increased. At length it became, as already indicated,
the subject of a special impost tax. Three or four hundred convicts
were imported into the colony annually, and the people began to
complain.[424] In "The Maryland Gazette" of the 30th of July, 1767, a
writer attempted to show that the convict element was not to be
despised, but was rather a desirable addition to the Province. He
says,--
"I suppose that for these last thirty years, communibus
annis, there have been at least 600 convicts per year
imported into this province: and these have probably gone
into 400 families."
After answering some objections to their importation because of the
contagious diseases likely to be communicated by them, he further
remarks,--
"This makes at least 400 to one, that they do no injury to
the country in the way complained of: and the people's
continuing to buy and receive them so constantly, shows
plainly the general sense of the country about the matter;
notwithstanding a few gentlemen seem so angry that convicts
are imported here at all, and would, if they could, by
spreading this terror, prevent the people's buying them. I
confess I am one, says he, who think a young country cannot
be settled, cultivated, and improved, without people of some
sort: and that it is much better for the country to receive
convicts than slaves. The wicked and bad amongst them, that
come into this province, mostly run away to the northward;
mix with their people, and pass for honest men: whilst those
more innocent, and who came for very small offences, serve
their times out here, behave well, and become useful
people."
This attempt to justify the _convict trade_ elicited two able and
spirited replies over the signatures of "Philanthropos" and "C.D."
appearing in "Green's Gazette" of 20th of August, 1767, in which the
writer of the first article is handled "with the gloves off."
"His remarks [says Philanthropos] remind me of the
observation of a great philosopher, who alleges that there
is a certain race of men of so selfish a cast, that they
would even set a neighbour's house on fire, for the
convenience of roasting an egg at the blaze. That these are
not the reveries of fanciful speculatists, the author now
under consideration is in a great measure a proof; for who,
but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would
endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such
imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should
interfere with his little schemes of profit? And who but
such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the
importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the
abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any
sort eligible for peopling a young country?"
In another part of his reply he remarks,--
"In confining the indignation because of their importation
to a few, and representing that the general sense of the
people is in favor of this vile importation, he is guilty of
the most shameful misrepresentation and the grossest
calumny upon the whole province. What opinion must our
mother country, and our sister colonies, entertain of our
virtue, when they see it confidently asserted in the
Maryland Gazette, that we are fond of peopling our country
with the most abandoned profligates in the universe? Is this
the way to purge ourselves from that false and bitter
reproach, so commonly thrown upon us, _that we are the
descendants of convicts?_ As far as it has lain in my way to
be acquainted with the general sentiments of the people upon
this subject, I solemnly declare, that the most discerning
and judicious amongst them esteem it the greatest grievance
imposed upon us by our mother country."
The writer felt that a young country could not be settled "without
people of some sort," and that it was better to secure "convicts than
slaves." Upon what grounds precisely this defender of buying convict
labor based his conclusion that he would rather have "convicts than
slaves" is not known. It could not have been that he believed the
convicts of England more industrious or skilful than Negro slaves? Or,
had he theoretical objections to slavery as a permanent institution?
Perhaps the writer had himself graduated from the criminal class! But
there were gentlemen who differed with him, and couched their
objections to the convict system of importation in very vigorous
English. On the 20th of August, 1767, two articles appeared in
"Greene's Gazette." Says one of these writers,--
"For who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness,
would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against
such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should
interfere with his little schemes of profit? And who but
such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the
importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the
abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any
sort eligible for peopling a young country?"
There can be no doubt but that many of the convicts thus imported,
having served out their time, in a brief season became slave-drivers
and slave-owners. With hearts reduced to flinty hardness in the fires
of unrestrained passions, the convict element, as it became absorbed
in the great free white population of the Province,[425] created a
most positive sentiment in favor of a cruel code for the government of
the Negro slave. There were two motives that inspired the ex-convict
to cruelty to the Negro: to divert attention from himself, and to
persuade himself, in his doubting mind, that the Negro was inferior to
him by _nature_. It was, no doubt, a great undertaking; but the
findings of such a court must have been comforting to an anxious
conscience! The result can be judged. Maryland made a slave-code,
which, for cruelty and general inhumanity, has no equal in the
South.[426] The Maryland laws of 1715 contained, in chapter
forty-four, an act with one hundred and thirty-five sections relating
to Negro slaves. A most rigorous pass-system was established. By
section six, no Negro or other servant was allowed to leave the county
without a pass under the seal of the county in which their master
resided; for which pass the slave or other servant was compelled to
pay ten pounds of tobacco, or one shilling in money. If such persons
were apprehended, a justice of the peace could impose such fines and
inflict such punishment as were fixed by the law applying to runaways.
By the Act of 1723, chapter fifteen, under the caption of "_An Act to
prevent the tumultuous meeting and other irregularities of negroes and
other slaves_," the severity of the laws was increased tenfold.
According to section four, a Negro or other slave who had the temerity
to strike a white person, was to have his ears "_cropt on order of a
Justice_." Section six denies slaves the right of possession of
property: they could not own cattle. Section seven gave authority to
any white man to kill a Negro who resisted an attempt to arrest him;
and by a supplemental Act of 1751, chapter fourteen, the owner of a
slave thus killed was to be paid out of the public treasury. In 1729
an Act was passed providing, that upon the conviction of certain
crimes, Negroes and other slaves shall be not only hanged, but the
body should be quartered, and exposed to public view. When slaves grew
old and infirm in the service of their masters, and the latter were
inspired by a desire to compliment the faithfulness of their servants
by emancipation, the law came in and forbade manumission by the "last
will or testament," or the making free in any way of Negro slaves. It
was a temporary Act, passed in 1752, void of every element of
humanity; and yet it stood as the law of the colony for twenty long
years.
In 1748 the Negro population of Maryland was thirty-six thousand, and
still rapidly increasing.
"By a 'very accurate census,' taken this year, this was
found to be the number of white inhabitants in Maryland:--
+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| | FREE. | SERVANTS. | CONVICTS. | TOTAL. |
+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|Men | 24,058 | 3,576 | 1,507 | 29,141 |
|Women | 23,521 | 1,824 | 386 | 25,731 |
|Boys | 26,637 | 1,048 | 67 | 27,752 |
|Girls | 24,141 | 422 | 21 | 24,584 |
|---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| | 98,357 | 6,870 | 1,981 | 107,208 |
+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+
"By the same account the total number of mulattoes in
Maryland amounted to 3,592; and the total number of Negroes,
to 42,764. Pres. Stiles' MS. It was reckoned (say the
authors of Univ. Hist.), that above 2,000 Negro slaves were
annually imported into Maryland."[427]
In 1756 the blacks had increased to 46,225, and in 1761 to 49,675.
There was nothing in the laws to prohibit the instruction of Negroes,
and yet no one dared to brave public sentiment on that point. The
churches gave no attention or care to the slaves. During the first
half or three-quarters of a century there was an indiscriminate
mingling and marrying among the Negroes and white servants; and,
although this was forbidden by rigid statutes, it went on to a
considerable extent. The half-breed, or Mulatto, population
increased;[428] and so did the number of free Negroes. The contact of
these two elements--of slaves and convicts--was neither prudent nor
healthy. The Negroes suffered from the touch of the moral contagion of
this effete matter driven out of European society. Courted as rather
agreeable companions by the convicts at first, the Negro slaves were
at length treated worse by the ex-convicts than by the most
intelligent and opulent slave-dealers in all the Province. And with no
rights in the courts, incompetent to hold an office of any kind, the
free Negroes were in almost as disagreeable a situation as the slaves.
From the founding of the colony of Maryland in 1632 down to the
Revolutionary War, there is no record left us that any effort was ever
made to cure the most glaring evils of slavery. For the Negro this was
one long, starless night of oppression and outrage. No siren's voice
whispered to him of a distant future, propitious and gracious to
hearts almost insensible to a throb of joy, to minds unconscious of
the feeblest rays of light. Being _absolute_ property, it was the
right of the master to say how much food, or what quantity of
clothing, his slave should have. There were no rules by which a slave
could claim the privilege of ceasing from labor at the close of the
day. No, the master had the same right to work his slaves after
nightfall as to drive his horse morning, noon, and night. Poor
clothes, rough and scanty diet, wretched quarters, overworked,
neglected in body and mind, the Negroes of Maryland had a sore lot.
The Revolution was nearing. Public attention was largely occupied with
the Stamp Act and preparations for hostilities. The Negro was left to
toil on; and, while at this time there was no legislation sought for
slavery, there was nothing done that could be considered hostile to
the institution. The Negroes hailed the mutterings of the distant
thunders of revolution as the precursor of a new era to them. It did
furnish an opportunity for them in Maryland to prove themselves
patriots and brave soldiers. And how far their influence went to
mollify public sentiment concerning them, will be considered in its
appropriate place. Suffice it now to say, that cruel and hurtful,
unjust and immoral, as the institution of slavery was, it had not
robbed the Negro of a lofty conception of the fundamental principles
that inspired white men to resist the arrogance of England; nor did it
impair his enthusiasm in the cause that gave birth to a new republic
amid the shock of embattled arms.
FOOTNOTES:
[414] Dr. Abiel Holmes, in his American Annals, vol. ii. p. 5, says,
"Maryland now contained about thirty-six thousand persons, of white
men from sixteen years of age and upwards, and negroes male, and
female from sixteen to sixty." I infer from this statement that
slavery was in existence in Maryland in 1634; and I cannot find any
thing in history to lead me to doubt but that slavery was born with
the colony.
[415] Cabinet Cyclopædia, vol. i. p. 61.
[416] See Bacon's Laws, also Holmes's Annals, vol. i. p. 250.
[417] The following appeared in the Plantation Laws, printed in London
in 1705: "Where any negro or slave, being in servitude or bondage, is
or shall become Christian, and receive the sacrament of baptism, the
same shall not nor ought not to be deemed, adjudged or construed to be
a manumission or freeing of any such negro or slave, or his or her
issue, from their servitude or bondage, but that notwithstanding they
shall at all times hereafter be and remain in servitude and bondage as
they were before baptism, any opinion, matter or thing to the contrary
notwithstanding."
[418] McSherry's Hist. of Maryland, p. 86.
[419] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 249.
[420] McMahon's Hist. of Maryland, vol. i. p. 274.
[421] The following form was used for a long time in Maryland for
binding out a servant.
This Indenture _made the ---- day of ---- in the ---- yeere
of our Soveraigne Lord King_ Charles,_&c betweene ---- of
the one party_, and ---- on the _other party_, Witnesseth,
_that the said ---- doth hereby covenant promise, and grant,
to and with the said ---- his Executors and Assignes, to
serve him from the day of the date hereof, untill his first
and next arrivall in_ Maryland: _and after for and during
the tearme of ---- yeeres, in such service and imployment,
as the said ---- or his assignee shall there imploy him,
according to the custome of the Countrey in the like kind.
In consideration whereof, the said ---- doth promise and
grant, to and with the said ---- to pay for his passing, and
to find him with Meat, Drinke, Apparell and Lodging, with
other necessaries during the said terme; and at the end of
the said terme, to give him one whole yeeres provision of
Corne, and fifty acres of Land, according to the order of
the countrey. In witnesse whereof, the said ---- hath
hereunto put his hand and seate, the day and yeere above
written_.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of ----
--_Relation of the state of Maryland_, pp. 62, 63.
[422] Modern Traveller, vol. i. pp. 122, 123.
[423] McMahon's Maryland, vol. i. p. 278.
[424] 1st Pitkin's United States, p. 133.
[425] McMahone says of this convict element: "The pride of this age
revolts at the idea of going back to such as these, for the roots of a
genealogical tree; and they, whose delight it would be, to trace their
blood through many generations of stupid, sluggish, imbecile
ancestors, with no claim to merit but the name they carry down, will
even submit to be called '_novi homines_,' if a convict stand in the
line of ancestry."
[426] With perhaps the single exception of South Carolina, of which
the reader will learn more farther on.
[427] American Annals.
[428] Dr. Holmes says, "The total number of mulattoes in Maryland
amounted to 3,592," in 1755.