THE COLONY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
1679-1775.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS EXERCISES
AUTHORITY OVER THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AT ITS
ORGANIZATION.--SLAVERY EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING.--THE
GOVERNOR RELEASES A SLAVE FROM BONDAGE.--INSTRUCTION AGAINST
IMPORTATION OF SLAVES.--SEVERAL ACTS REGULATING THE CONDUCT
OF SERVANTS.--THE INDIFFERENT TREATMENT OF SLAVES.--THE
IMPORTATION OF INDIAN SERVANTS FORBIDDEN.--AN ACT CHECKING
THE SEVERE TREATMENT OF SERVANTS AND SLAVES.--SLAVES IN THE
COLONY UNTIL THE COMMENCEMENT OF HOSTILITIES.
Anterior to the year 1679, the provincial government of Massachusetts
exercised authority over the territory that now comprises the State of
New Hampshire. It is not at all improbable, then, that slavery existed
in this colony from the beginning of its organic existence. As early
as 1683 it was set upon by the authorities as a wicked and hateful
institution. On the 14th of March, 1684, the governor of New Hampshire
assumed the responsibility of releasing a Negro slave from bondage.
The record of the fact is thus preserved:--
"_The governor tould Mr. Jaffery's negro hee might goe from
his master, hee would clere him under hande and sele, so the
fello no more attends his master's consernes._"[504]
It may be inferred from the above, that the royal governor of the
Province felt the pressure of public sentiment on the question of
anti-slavery. While this colony copied its criminal code from
Massachusetts, its people seemed to be rather select, and, on the
question of human rights, far in advance of the people of
Massachusetts. The twelfth article was: "If any man stealeth mankind
he shall be put to death or otherwise grievously punished." The entire
code--the first one--was rejected in England as "fanatical and
absurd."[505] It was the desire of this new and feeble colony to
throw every obstacle in the way of any legal recognition of slavery.
The governors of all the colonies received instruction in regard to
the question of slavery, but the governor of New Hampshire had
received an order from the crown to have the tax on imported slaves
removed. The royal instructions, dated June 30, 1761, were as
follows:--
"You are not to give your assent to, or pass any law
imposing duties on negroes imported into New
Hampshire."[506]
New Hampshire never passed any law establishing slavery, but in 1714
enacted several laws regulating the conduct of servants. One was _An
Act to prevent disorder in the night_:--
"Whereas great disorders, insolencies, and burglaries are
ofttimes raised and committed in the night time by Indian,
negro and mulatto servants and slaves, to the disquiet and
hurt of her Majesty's good subjects, for the prevention
whereof _Be it_, &c.--that no Indian, negro or mulatto
servant or slave may presume to be absent from the families
where they respectively belong, or be found abroad in the
night time after nine o'clock; unless it be upon errand for
their respective masters."[507]
The instructions against the importation of slaves were in harmony
with the feelings of the great majority of the people. They felt that
slavery would be a hinderance rather than a help to them, and in the
selection of servants chose white ones. If the custom of holding men
in bondage had become a part of the institutions of Massachusetts,--so
like a cancer that it could not be removed without endangering the
political and commercial life of the colony,--the good people of New
Hampshire, acting in the light of experience, resolved, upon the
threshold of their provincial life, to oppose the introduction of
slaves into their midst. The first result was, that they learned quite
early that they could get on without slaves; and, second, the traders
in human flesh discovered that there was no demand for slaves in New
Hampshire. Even nature fought against the crime; and Negroes were
found to be poorly suited to the climate, and, of course, were an
expensive luxury in that colony.
But, nevertheless, there were slaves in New Hampshire. The majority of
them had gone in during the time the colony was a part of the
territory of Massachusetts. They had been purchased by men who
regarded them as indispensable to them. They had lived long in many
families; children had been born unto them, and in many instances they
were warmly attached to their owners. But all masters were not alike.
Some treated their servants and slaves cruelly. The neglect in some
cases was worse than stripes or over-work. Some were poorly clad and
scantily fed; and, thus exposed to the inclemency of the severe
climate, many were precipitated into premature graves. Even white and
Indian servants shared this harsh treatment. The Indians endured
greater hardships than the Negroes. They were more lofty in their
tone, more sensitive in their feelings, more revengeful in their
disposition. They were both hated and feared, and the public sentiment
against them was very pronounced. A law, passed in 1714, forbid their
importation into the colony under a heavy penalty.
In 1718 it was found necessary to pass a law to check the severe
treatment inflicted upon servants and slaves. _An Act for restraining
inhuman severities_ recited,--
"Fort the prevention and restraining of inhuman severities
which by evil masters or overseers, may be used towards
their Christian servants, that from and after the
publication hereof, if any man smite out the eye or tooth of
his man servant or maid servant, or otherwise maim or
disfigure them much, unless it be by mere casualty, he shall
let him or her go free from his service, and shall allow
such further recompense as the court of quarter sessions
shall adjudge him. 2. That if any person or persons whatever
in this province shall wilfully kill his Indian or negroe
servant or servants he shall be punished with death."[508]
There were slaves in New Hampshire down to the breaking-out of the war
in the colonies, but they were only slaves in name. Few in number,
widely scattered, they felt themselves closely identified with the
interests of the colonists.
FOOTNOTES:
[504] Belknap's Hist. of N.H., vol. i. p. 333.
[505] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 501.
[506] Gordon's Hist. of Am. Rev., vol. v. Letter 2.
[507] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 266.
[508] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 267.