THE COLONY OF CONNECTICUT.
1646-1775.
THE FOUNDING OF CONNECTICUT, 1631-36.--NO RELIABLE DATA
GIVEN FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF SLAVES.--NEGROES WERE FIRST
INTRODUCED SOME DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF THE
COLONY.--"COMMITTEE FOR TRADE AND FOREIGN
PLANTATIONS."--INTERROGATING THE GOVERNOR AS THE NUMBER OF
NEGROES IN THE COLONY IN 1680.--THE LEGISLATURE (1690)
PASSES A LAW PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE AND TREATMENT OF
SLAVES AND FREE PERSONS.--AN ACT PASSED BY THE GENERAL COURT
IN 1711, REQUIRING PERSONS MANUMITTING SLAVES TO MAINTAIN
THEM.--REGULATING THE SOCIAL CONDUCT OF SLAVES IN 1723.--THE
PUNISHMENT OF NEGRO, INDIAN, AND MULATTO SLAVES, FOR THE USE
OF PROFANE LANGUAGE, IN 1630.--LAWFULNESS OF INDIAN AND
NEGRO SLAVERY RECOGNIZED BY CODE, SEPT. 5, 1646.--LIMITED
RIGHTS OF FREE NEGROES IN THE COLONY.--NEGRO POPULATIONS IN
1762.--ACT AGAINST IMPORTATION OF SLAVES, 1774.
Although the colony of Connecticut was founded between the years 1631
and 1636, there are to be found no reliable data by which to fix the
time of the introduction of slavery there.[435] Like the serpent's
entrance into the Garden of Eden, slavery entered into this colony
stealthily; and its power for evil was discovered only when it had
become a formidable social and political element. Vessels from the
West Coast of Africa, from the West Indies, and from Barbadoes, landed
Negroes for sale in Connecticut during the early years of its
settlement. And for many years slavery existed here, without sanction
of law, it is true, but perforce of custom. Negroes were bought as
laborers and domestics, and it was a long time before their number
called for special legislation. But, like a cancer, slavery grew until
there was not a single colony in North America that could boast of its
ability to check the dreadful curse. When the first slaves were
introduced into this colony, can never be known; but, that there were
Negro slaves from the beginning, we have the strongest historical
presumption. For nearly two decades there was no reference made to
slavery in the records of the colony.
In 1680 "the Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations" addressed to
the governors of the North-American plantations or colonies a series
of questions. Among the twenty-seven questions put to Gov. Leete of
Connecticut, were two referring to Negroes. The questions were as
follows:--
"17. What number of English, Scotch, Irish or Forreigners
have (for these seaven yeares last past, or any other space
of time) come yearly to plant and inhabit within your
Corporation. And also, what Blacks and Slaves have been
brought in within the said time, and att what rates?
"18. What number of Whites, Blacks or Mulattos have been
born and christened, for these seaven yeares last past, or
any other space of time, for as many yeares as you are able
to state on account of?"[436]
To these the governor replied as follows:--
"17. _Answ_. For English, Scotts and Irish, there are so few
come in that we cannot give a certain acco't. Som yeares
come none; sometimes, a famaly or two, in a year. And for
Blacks, there comes sometimes 3 or 4 in a year from
Barbadoes; and they are sold usually at the rate of 22'li. a
piece, sometimes more and sometimes less, according as men
can agree with the master of vessells, or merchants that
bring them hither.
"18. _Answ_. We can give no acco't. of the perfect number of
either born; but fewe blacks; and but two blacks christened,
as we know of."[437]
It is evident that the number of slaves was not great at this time,
and that they were few and far between. The sullen and ofttimes
revengeful spirit of the Indians had its effect upon the few Negro
slaves in the colony. Sometimes they were badly treated by their
masters, and occasionally they would run away. The country was new,
the settlements scattered; and slavery as an institution, at this time
and in this colony, in its infancy. The spirit of insubordination
among the slave population seemed to call aloud for legislative
restriction. In October, 1690, the Legislature passed the following
bill:--
"Whereas many persons of this Colony doe for their necessary
use purchase negroe seruants, and often times the sayd
seruants run away to the great wronge, damage and
disapoyntment of their masters and owners, for prevention of
which for [221] the future, as much as || may be, it is
ordered by this Court that Whateuer negroe or negroes shall
hereafter, at any time, be fownd wandring out of the towne
bownds or place to which they doe belong, without a ticket
or pass from the authority, or their masters or owners,
shall be stopt and secured by any of the inhabitants, or
such as shall meet with them, and brought before the next
authority to be examined and returned to their owners, who
shall sattisfy for the charge if any be; and all ferrymen
within this Colony are hereby required not to suffer any
negroe without such certificate, to pass over their ferry by
assisting them therein, upon the penalty of twenty
shillings, to be payd as a fine to the county treasury, and
to be leuyed upon theire estates for non-payment in way of
distresse by warrant from any one Assistant or Com'r. This
order to be observed as to vagrant and susspected persons
fownd wandring from town to town, hauveing no passes; such
to be seized for examination and farther disspose by the
authority; and if any negroes are free and for themselves,
travelling without such ticket or certificate, they to bear
the charge themselves of their takeing up."[438]
The general air of complaint that pervades the above bill leads to the
conclusion that it was required by an alarming state of affairs. The
pass-system was a copy from the laws of the older colonies where
slavery had long existed. By implication free Negroes had to secure
from the proper authorities a certificate of freedom; and the bill
required them to carry it, or pay the cost of arrest.
One of the most palpable evidences of the humanity of the Connecticut
government was the following act passed in May, 1702:--
"Whereas it is observed that some persons in this Colonie
having purchased Negro or Malatta Servants or Slaves, after
they have spent the pricipall part of their time and
strength in their masters service, doe sett them at liberty,
and the said slaves not being able to provide necessaries
for themselves may become a charge and burthen to the towns
where they have served: for prevention whereof,
"It is ordered and enacted by this Court and the authority
thereof: That every person in this Colonie that now is or
hereafter shall be owner of a negro or mulatta servant or
slave, and after some time of his or her being taken into
imployment in his or her service, shall sett such servant or
slave at liberty to provide for him or herselfe, if
afterwards such servant or slave shall come to want, every
such servant shall be relieved at the onely cost and charge
of the person in whose service he or she was last reteined
or taken, and by whome sett at liberty, or at the onely cost
and charge of his or her heirs, executors or administrators,
any law, usage or custome to the contrary
notwithstanding."[439]
Massachusetts had acted and did act very cowardly about this matter.
But Connecticut showed great wisdom and humanity in making a just and
equitable provision for such poor and decrepit slaves as might find
themselves turned out to charity after a long life of unrequited
toil. Slavery was in itself "the sum of all villanies,"--the blackest
curse that ever scourged the earth. To buy and sell human beings; to
tear from the famishing breast of the mother her speechless child; to
separate the husband from the wife of his heart; to wring riches from
the unpaid toil of human beings; to tear down the family altar, and
let lecherous beasts, who claim the name of "Christian," run over
defenceless womanhood as swine over God's altar!--is there any thing
worse, do you ask? Yes! To work a human being from youth to old age,
to appropriate the labor of that being exclusively, to rob it of the
blessings of this life, to poison every domestic charity, to fetter
the intellect by the power of fatal ignorance, to withhold the
privileges of the gospel of love; and then, when the hollow cough
comes under an inclement sky, when the shadows slant, when the hand
trembles, when the gait is shuffling, when the ear is deaf, the eye
dim, when desire faileth,--then to turn that human being out to die is
by far the profoundest crime man can be guilty of in his dealings with
mankind! And slavery had so hardened men's hearts, that the above act
was found to be necessary to teach the alphabet of human kindness. No
wonder human forbearance was strained to its greatest tension when
masters, thus liberating their slaves, assumed the lofty air of
humanitarians who had actually done a noble act in manumitting a
slave!
In 1708 the General Court was called upon to legislate against the
commercial communion that had gone on between the slaves and free
persons in an unrestricted manner for a long time. Slaves would often
steal articles of household furniture, wares, clothing, etc., and sell
them to white persons. And, in order to destroy the ready market this
wide-spread kleptomania found, an Act was passed making it a
misdemeanor for a free person to purchase any article from slaves. It
is rather an interesting law, and is quoted in full.
"Whereas divers rude and evil minded persons for the sake of
filthie lucre do frequently receive from Indians, malattoes
and negro servants, money and goods stolen or obteined by
other indirect and unlawful means, thereby incouraging such
servants to steal from their masters and others: for redress
whereof,
[35] _Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and
Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the
authoritie of the same_, That every free person whomsoever,
which shall presume either openly or privately to buy or
receive of or from any Indian, molato or negro servant or
slave, any goods, money, merchandize, wares, or provisions,
without order from the master or mistress of such servant
or slave, every person so offending and being thereof
convicted, shall be sentenced to restore all such money,
goods, wares, merchandizes, or provisions, unto the partie
injured, in specie, (if not altered,) and also forfeit to
the partie double the value thereof over and above, or
treble the value where the same are disposed of or made
away. And if the person so offending be unable, or shall not
make restitution as awarded, then to be openly whipt with so
many stripes (not exceeding twentie,) as the court or
justices that have cognizance of such offence shall order,
or make satisfaction by service. And the Indian, negro, or
molatto servant or slave, of or from whom such goods, money,
wares, merchandizes or provisions shall be received or
bought, if it appear to be stolen, or that shall steal any
money, goods, or chattells, and be thereof convicted,
although the buyer or receiver be not found, shall be
punished by whipping not exceeding thirtie stripes, and the
money, goods or chattels shall be restored to the partie
injured, if it be found. And every assistant and justice of
peace in the countie where such offence is committed, is
hereby authorized to hear and determine all offences against
this law, provided the damage exceed not the sum of fortie
shillings."[440]
On the same day another act was passed, charging that as Mulatto and
Negro slaves had become numerous in parts of the colony, destined to
become insubordinate, abusive of white people, etc., and is as
follows:--
"And whereas negro and molatto servants or slaves are become
numerous in some parts of this Colonie, and are very apt to
be turbulent, and often quarrelling with white people to the
great disturbance of the peace:
"_It is therefore ordered and enacted by the Governour,
Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and
by the authoritie of the same_, That if any negro or malatto
servant or slave disturb the peace, or shall offer to strike
any white person, and be thereof convicted, such negro or
malatto servant or slave shall be punished by whipping, at
the discretion of the court, assistant or justice of the
peace that shall have cognizance thereof, not exceeding
thirtie stripes for one offence."[441]
In 1711 the General Court of Connecticut Colony signally distinguished
itself by the passage of an act in harmony with that of 1702. It was
found that indentured servants as well as slaves had been made the
victims of the cruel policy of turning slaves and servants out into
the world without means of support after they had become helpless, or
had served out their time. This class of human beings had been cast
aside, like a squeezed lemon, to be trodden under the foot of men. The
humane and thoughtful men of the colony demanded a remedy at law, and
it came in the following admirable bill:--
"An Act relating to Slaves, and such in particular as shall
happen to become Servants for Time.
"_It is ordered and enacted by the Governour, Council and
Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the
authority of the same_, That all slaves set at liberty by
their owners, and all negro, malatto, or Spanish Indians,
who are servants to masters for time, in case they come to
want, after they shall be so set at liberty, or the time of
their said service be expired, shall be relieved by such
owners or masters respectively, their heirs, executors, or
administrators; and upon their, or either of their refusal
so to do, the said slaves and servants shall be relieved by
the selectmen of the towns to which they belong, and the
said selectmen shall recover of the said owners or masters,
their heirs, executors, or administrators, all the charge
and cost they were at for such relief, in the usual manner
as in the case of any other debts."[442]
In 1723 an Act was passed regulating the social conduct, and
restricting the personal rights, of slaves. The slaves were quite
numerous at this time, and hence the colonists deemed it proper to
secure repressive legislation. It is strange how anticipatory the
colonies were during the zenith of the slavery institution! They were
always expecting something of the slaves. No doubt they thought that
it would be but the normal action of goaded humanity if the slaves
should rise and cut their masters' throats. The colonists lived in
mortal dread of their slaves, and the character of the legislation was
but the thermometer of their fear. This Act was a slight indication of
the unrest of the people of this colony on the slavery question:--
"[376] AN ACT TO PREVENT THE DISORDER OF NEGRO AND INDIAN
SERVANTS AND SLAVES IN THE NIGHT SEASON.
"_Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and
Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the
authority of the same_, That from and after the publication
of this act, if any negro or Indian servant or slave shall
be found abroad from home in the night season, after nine of
the clock, without special order from his or their master or
mistress, it shall be lawful for any person or persons to
apprehend and secure such negro or Indian servant or slave
so offending, and him or them bring before the next
assistant or justice of peace; which assistant or justice of
peace shall have full power to pass sentence upon such negro
or Indian servant or slave so offending, and order him or
them to be publickly whipt on his or their naked body, not
exceeding ten stripes, and pay cost of court, except his or
their master or mistress shall redeem them by paying a fine
not exceeding twenty shillings.
"_And it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid_, That
if any such negro or Indian servant or slave as abovesaid
shall have entertainment in any house after nine of the
clock as aforesaid, except to do any business they may be
sent upon, the head of the family that entertaineth or
tolerates them in his or their house, or any the
dependencies thereof, and being convicted thereof before any
one assistant or justice of the peace, who shall have power
to hear and determine the same, shall forfeit the sum of
twenty shillings, one-half to the complainer and the other
half to the treasury of the town where the offence is
committed; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
And that it shall be the duty of the several grand-jurors
and constables and tything-men, to make diligent enquiry
into and present of all breaches of this act."[443]
The laws regulating slavery in the colony of Connecticut, up to this
time, had stood, and been faithfully enforced. There had been a few
infractions of the law, but the guilty had been punished. And in
addition to statutory regulation of slaves, the refractory ones were
often summoned to the bar of public opinion and dealt with summarily.
Individual owners of slaves felt themselves at liberty to use the
utmost discretion in dealing with this species of their property. So
on every hand the slave found himself scrutinized, suspicioned,
feared, hated, and hounded by the entire community of whites who were
by law a perpetual _posse comitatus_. The result of too great
vigilance and severe censorship was positive and alarming. It made the
slave desperate. It intoxicated him with a malice that would brook no
restraint. It is said that the use of vigorous adjectives and strong
English is a relief to one in moments of trial. But even this was
denied the oppressed slaves in Connecticut; for in May, 1730, a bill
was passed punishing them for using strong language.
"AN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF NEGROES, INDIAN AND MULATTO
SLAVES, FOR SPEAKING DEFAMATORY WORDS.
"_Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and
Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the
authority of the same_, That if any Negro, Indian or Molatto
slave shall utter, publish and speak such words of any
person that would by law be actionable if the same were
uttered, published or spoken by any free person of any
other, such Negro, Indian or Molatto slave, being thereof
convicted before any one assistant or justice of the peace,
(who are hereby impowred to hear and determine the same,)
shall be punished by whipping, at the discretion of the
assistant or justice before whom the tryal is, (respect
being had to the circumstances of the case,) not exceeding
forty stripes. And the said slave, so convict, shall be sold
to defray all charges arising thereby, unless the same be by
his or their master or mistress paid and answered, &c."[444]
The above act is the most remarkable document in this period of its
kind. And yet there are two noticeable features in it: viz., the
slave is to be proceeded against the same as if he were a free person;
and he was to be entitled to offer evidence, enter his plea, and
otherwise defend himself against the charge. This was more than was
allowed in any of the other colonies.
On the 9th of September, 1730, Gov. J. Talcott, in a letter to the
"Board of Trade," said that there were "about 700 Indian and Negro
slaves" in the colony. The most of these were Negro slaves. For on the
8th of July, 1715, a proclamation was issued by the governor against
the importation of Indians;[445] and on the 13th of October, 1715, a
bill was passed "_prohibiting the Importation or bringing into_" the
colony any Indian slaves. It was an exact copy of the Act of May,
1712, passed in the colony of Massachusetts.
The colony of Connecticut never established slavery by direct statute;
but in adopting a code which was ordered by the General Court of
Hartford to be "copied by the secretary into the book of public
records," it gave the institution legal sanction. This code was signed
on the 5th of September, 1646. It recognized the lawfulness of Indian
and Negro slavery. This was done under the confederacy of the "United
Colonies of New England."[446] For some reason the part of the code
recognizing slavery is omitted from the revised laws of 1715. In this
colony, as in Massachusetts, only members of the church, "and living
within the jurisdiction," could be admitted to the rights of freemen.
In 1715 an Act was passed requiring persons who desired to become
"freemen of this corporation," to secure a certificate from the
selectmen that they were "persons of quiet and peaceable behavior and
civil conversation, of the age of twenty-one years, and freeholders."
This provision excluded all free Negroes. It was impossible for one to
secure such a certificate. Public sentiment alone would have frowned
upon such an innovation upon the customs and manners of the Puritans.
On the 17th of May, 1660, the following Act was passed: "It is ordered
by this court, that neither Indian nor negar serv'ts shall be required
to traine, watch or ward in the Collo:"[447]
To determine the status of the Negro here, this Act was necessary. He
might be free, own his own labor; but if the law excluded him from the
periodical musters and trainings, from the church and civil duties,
his freedom was a mere _misnomer_. It is difficult to define the
rights of a free Negro in this colony. He was restricted in his
relations with the slaves, and in his intercourse with white people
was regarded with suspicion. If he had, in point of law, the right to
purchase property, the general prejudice that confronted him on every
hand made his warmest friends judiciously conservative. There were no
provisions made for his intellectual or spiritual growth. He was
regarded by both the religious and civil government, under which he
lived, as a heathen. Even his accidental conversion could not change
his condition, nor mollify the feelings of the white Christians (?)
about him. Like the wild animal, he was possessed with the barest
privilege of getting something to eat. Beyond this he had nothing.
Everywhere he turned, he felt the withering glance of a suspicious
people. Prejudice and prescriptive legislation cast their dark shadows
on his daily path; and the conscious superiority of the whites
consigned him to the severest drudgery for his daily bread. The
recollection of the past was distressing, the trials and burdens of
the present were almost unbearable, while the future was one shapeless
horror to him.
Perhaps the lowly and submissive acquiescence of the Negroes, bond and
free, had a salutary effect upon the public mind. There is something
awfully grand in an heroic endurance of undeserved pain. The white
Christians married, and were given in marriage; they sowed and
gathered rich harvests; they bought and built happy homes; beautiful
children were born unto them; they built magnificent churches, and
worshipped the true God: the present was joyous, and the future
peopled with sublime anticipation. The contrast of these two peoples
in their wide-apart conditions must have made men reflective. And
added to this came the loud thunders of the Revolution. Connecticut
had her orators, and they touched the public heart with the glowing
coals of patriotic resolve. They felt the insecurity of their own
liberties, and were now willing to pronounce in favor of the liberty
of the Negroes. The inconsistency of asking for freedom, praying for
freedom, fighting for freedom, and dying for freedom, when they
themselves held thousands of human beings in bondage the most cruel
the world ever knew, helped the cause of the slave. In 1762 the Negro
population of this colony was four thousand five hundred and
ninety.[448] Public sentiment was aroused on the slavery question;
and in October, 1774, the following prohibition was directed at
slavery:--
"_Act against importation of slaves_--"No Indian, negro, or
mulatto slave shall at any time hereafter be brought or
imported into this State, by sea or land, from any place or
places whatsoever, to be disposed of, left or sold, within
this State."[449]
The above bill was brief, but pointed; and showed that Connecticut was
the only one of the New-England colonies that had the honesty and
courage to legislate against slavery. And the patriotism and
incomparable valor of the Negro soldiers of Connecticut, who proudly
followed the Continental flag through the fires of the Revolutionary
War, proved that they were worthy of the humane sentiment that
demanded the Act of 1774.
FOOTNOTES:
[435] In the Capital Laws of Connecticut, passed on the 1st of
December, 1642, the tenth law reads as follows. "10. If any man
stealeth a man or mankind, he shall be put to death. Ex. 21 16." But
this was the law in Massachusetts, and yet slavery existed there for
one hundred and forty-three (143) years.
[436] Conn. Col. Recs., 1678-89, p. 293.
[437] Ibid., p. 298.
[438] Conn Col Recs., 1689-1706, p. 40
[439] Ibid. 1689-1706, pp. 375, 376.
[440] Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, p. 52.
[441] Ibid., pp 51, 53.
[442] Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, p. 233.
[443] Conn. Col. Recs., 1717-25, pp. 390, 391.
[444] Ibid., 1726-35, p. 290.
[445] Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, pp. 515, 516.
[446] Hazard, State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 1-6.
[447] Conn. Col. Recs., vol. i. p. 349.
[448] Pres. Stiles's MSS.
[449] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. pp. 272, 273.