THE DESTRUCTION OF SLAVERY--ABOLITION.
The events which led to the extinction of slavery in Pennsylvania fall
naturally into four periods. They are, first, the years from 1682 to
about 1740, during which the Germans discountenanced slave-holding, and
the Friends ceased importing negroes; second, the period of the Quaker
abolitionists, from about 1710 to 1780, by which time slavery among
the Quakers had come to an end; third, from 1780 to 1788, the years of
legislative action; and finally, the period from 1788 to the time when
slavery in Pennsylvania became extinct through the gradual working of
the act for abolition.
Opposition to slaveholding arose among the Friends. Slavery had not
yet been recognized in statute law when they began to protest against
it. This protest, faint in the beginning and taken up only by a few
idealists, was never stopped afterwards, but, growing continually in
strength, was, as the events of after years showed, from the first
fraught with foreboding of doom to the institution. Opposition on
the part of the Friends had begun before Pennsylvania was founded.
In 1671 Fox, travelling in the West Indies, advised his brethren in
Barbadoes to deal mildly with their negroes, and after certain years of
servitude to make them free. Four years later William Edmundson in one
of his letters asked how it was possible for men to reconcile Christ's
command, to do as they would be done by, with the practice of holding
slaves without hope or expectation of freedom.[200] Nevertheless in
the first years after the settlement of Pennsylvania Friends were the
principal slaveholders. This led to differences of opinion, but at the
start economic considerations prevailed.
The reform really began in 1688, a year memorable for the first formal
protest against slavery in North America.[201] Germantown had been
settled by German refugees who in religious belief were Friends. These
men, simple-minded and honest, having had no previous acquaintance with
slavery, were amazed to find it existing in Penn's colony. At their
monthly meeting, the eighteenth of the second month, 1688, Pastorius
and other leaders drew up an eloquent and touching memorial. In words
of surpassing nobleness and simplicity they stated the reasons why they
were against slavery and the traffic in men's bodies. Would the masters
wish so to be dealt with? Was it possible for this to be in accord with
Christianity? In Pennsylvania there was freedom of conscience; there
ought likewise to be freedom of the body. What report would it cause
in Europe that in this new land the Quakers handled men as there men
treated their cattle? If it were possible that Christian men might do
these things they desired to be so informed.[202]
This protest they sent to the Monthly Meeting at Richard Worrel's.
There it was considered, and found too weighty to be dealt with, and
so it was sent on to the Quarterly Meeting at Philadelphia, and from
thence to the Yearly Meeting at Burlington, which finally decided not
to give a positive judgment in the case.[203] For the present nothing
came of it; but the idea did not die. It probably lingered in the minds
of many men; for within a few years a sentiment had been aroused which
became widespread and powerful.
In 1693 George Keith, leader of a dissenting faction of Quakers, laid
down as one of his doctrines that negroes were men, and that slavery
was contrary to the religion of Christ; also that masters should set
their negroes at liberty after some reasonable time.[204] At a meeting
of Friends held in Philadelphia in 1693 the prevailing opinion was that
none should buy except to set free. Three years later at the Friends'
Yearly Meeting it was resolved to discourage the further bringing in of
slaves.[205] In 1712 when the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia desiring
counsel applied to the Yearly Meeting at London, it received answer
that the multiplying of negroes might be of dangerous consequence.[206]
In the next and the following years the Meetings strongly advised
Friends not to import and not to buy slaves.[207] From 1730 to 1737
reports showed that the importation of negroes by Friends was being
largely discontinued. By 1745 it had virtually ceased.[208]
It is generally believed that Pennsylvania's restrictive legislation,
that long series of acts passed for the purpose of keeping out negroes
by means of prohibitive duties, was largely due to Quaker influence.
This is probably true, but it is not easy to prove. The proceedings of
the colonial Assembly have been reported so briefly that they do not
give the needed information. When, however, the strong feeling of the
Friends is understood in connection with the fact that they controlled
the early legislatures, it is not hard to believe that the high duties
were imposed because they wished the traffic at an end. Their feeling
about the slave-trade and their desire to stop it are revealed again
and again in the meeting minutes.[209] The most drastic law was
certainly due to them.[210]
But the small number of negroes in Pennsylvania as compared with the
neighboring northern colonies was above all due to the early and
continuous aversion to slavery manifested by the Germans. The first
German settlers opposed the institution for religious reasons.[211]
This opposition is perhaps to be ascribed to them as Quakers rather
than as men of a particular race. But as successive swarms poured into
the country it was found, it may be from religious scruples, more
probably because of peculiar economic characteristics and because of
feelings of sturdy industry and self-reliance, that they almost never
bought negroes nor even hired them.[212] As the German element in
Pennsylvania was very considerable, amounting at times to one-third of
the population, such a course, though lacking in dramatic quality, and
though it has been unheralded by the historians, was nevertheless of
immense and decisive importance.[213]
During this period, then, much had been accomplished. Not only had the
Germans turned their backs upon slave-holding, but the Friends, brought
to perceive the iniquity of the practice, had ceased importing slaves,
and for the most part had ceased buying them. It was another generation
before the conservative element could be brought to advance beyond
this position. It was not so easy to make them give up the slaves they
already had.
The succeeding period was characterized by an inevitable struggle which
ensued between considerations of economy and ethics. The attitude of
many Friends was that in refusing to buy any more slaves they were
fulfilling all reasonable obligations. Sometimes there was a desire
to hush up the whole matter and get it out of mind. Isaac Norris
tells of a meeting that was large and comfortable, where the business
would have gone very well but for the warm pushing by some Friends
of Chester in the matter of negroes. But he adds that affairs were
so managed that the unpleasant subject was dropped.[214] What would
have been the result of this disposition cannot now be known; but it
proved impossible to smooth matters away. There had already begun
an age of reformers, forerunners by a hundred years of Garrison and
his associates, men who were content with nothing less than entire
abolition.
The first of the abolitionists was William Southeby of Maryland, who
went to Pennsylvania. For years the subject of slavery weighed heavily
upon his mind. As early as 1696 he urged the Meeting to take action.
His petition to the Provincial Assembly in 1712 asking that all slaves
be set free was one of the most memorable incidents in the early
struggle against slavery. But the Assembly resolved that his project
was neither just nor convenient; and his ideas were so far in advance
of the times that not only did he a little later lose favor among the
Friends, but long after it was the judgment that his ill-regulated zeal
had brought only sorrow.[215]
The next in point of time was Ralph Sandiford (1693-1733), a Friend of
Philadelphia. His hostility to slavery was aroused by the sufferings
of negroes whom he had seen in the West Indies; and his feeling was
so strong that on one occasion he refused to accept a gift from a
slaveholder. In 1729 he published his _Mystery of Iniquity_, an
impassioned protest against slavery. Although threatened with severe
penalties if he circulated this work, he distributed it wherever he
felt that it would be of use.[216] Such enmity did he arouse that he
was forced to leave the city.[217]
His work was carried forward by Benjamin Lay (1677-1759), an Englishman
who came from Barbadoes to Philadelphia in 1731. He too aroused much
hostility by his violence of expression and eccentric efforts to create
pity for the slaves. He gave his whole life to the cause, but owing to
his too radical methods he was much less influential than he might have
been.[218]
A man of far greater power was John Woolman (1720-1772), perhaps the
greatest liberator that the Friends ever produced. Woolman gave up his
position as accountant rather than write bills for the sale of negroes.
He was very religious, and most of his life he spent as a minister
travelling from one colony to another trying to persuade men of the
wickedness of slavery. In 1754 he published the first part of his
book, _Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes_, of which the
second part appeared in 1762. He was stricken with smallpox while on a
visit to England, and died there.[219]
The last was Anthony Benezet (1713-1784), a French Huguenot who joined
the Society of Friends. He came to Philadelphia as early as 1731, but
it was about 1750 that his attention was drawn to the negroes. From
that time to the end of his life he was their zealous advocate. By his
writings upon Africa, slavery, and the slave-trade, he attracted the
attention and enlisted the support of many. He was untiring in his
efforts. Frequently he talked with the negroes and strove to improve
them; he endeavored to create a favorable impression of them; he was
influential in securing the passage of the abolition act; and at his
death he bequeathed the bulk of his property to the cause which he had
served so well in his life.[220]
That these Quaker reformers, particularly men like Woolman and Benezet,
exerted an enormous influence against slavery in Pennsylvania,
there can be no doubt.[221] Their influence is attested by numerous
contemporary allusions, but it is proved far better by the change in
sentiment which was gradually brought about. Southeby, Sandiford, and
Lay were before their time and were treated as fanatics. Woolman and
Benezet who came afterward were able to reap the harvest which had been
sown.
The movement which had been urged with violent rapidity from without
was all the while proceeding slowly and quietly within. For many years
the Friends considered slavery, and almost every year the Meetings
made reports upon the subject. These reports showed that the number of
Quakers who bought slaves was constantly decreasing.[222] In 1743 an
annual query was instituted.[223] In 1754 the Yearly Meeting circulated
a printed letter strongly condemning slavery.[224] The second decisive
step followed when it was made a rule that Friends who persisted in
buying slaves should be disowned. The measure was effective and this
part of the work was soon accomplished.[225] Finally in 1758 the third
step was taken when it was unanimously agreed that Friends should
be advised to manumit their slaves, and that those who persisted in
holding them should not be allowed to participate in the affairs of
the Society.[226] John Woolman and others were appointed on committees
to visit slaveholders and persuade them.[227]
The work of these visiting committees is as remarkable as any in the
history of slavery. Self-sacrificing people who had freed their own
slaves now abandoned their interests and set out to persuade others
to give negroes the freedom thought to be due them. In southeastern
Pennsylvania are old diaries almost untouched for a century and a half
which bear witness of characters odd and heroic; which contain the
story of men and women sincere, brave, and unfaltering, who united
quiet mysticism with the zeal of a crusader. The committees undertook
to persuade a whole population to give up its slaves. There is no doubt
that the task was a difficult one. Again and again the writers speak
of obstacles overcome. They tell of owners who would not be convinced,
who acknowledged that slavery was wrong, and promised that they would
buy no more slaves, but who affirmed that they would keep such as they
had. The diaries speak of repeated visits, of the arguments employed,
of slow and gradual yielding, and of final triumph. If ever Christian
work was carried on in the spirit of Christ, it was when John Woolman,
Isaac Jackson, James Moon, and their fellow missionaries put an end to
slavery among the Quakers of Pennsylvania.[228]
The penalties denounced by the Meeting were imposed with firmness.
In 1761 the Chester Quarterly Meeting dealt with a member for having
bought and sold a slave.[229] Through this and the following years
there are many records in the Monthly Meetings of manumissions,
voluntary and persuaded; record being made in each case to ensure the
negro his freedom.[230] In 1774 the Philadelphia Meeting resolved that
Friends who held slaves beyond the age at which white apprentices were
discharged, should be treated as disorderly persons.[231] The work of
abolition was practically completed in 1776 when the resolution passed
that members who persisted in holding slaves were to be disowned.[232]
If this is understood in connection with the fact that in the Meetings
questions were rarely decided except by almost unanimous vote, it is
clear that so far as the Friends were concerned slavery was nearly
extinct. This was almost absolutely accomplished by 1780.[233]
The wholesale private abolition of slavery by the Friends of
Pennsylvania is one of those occurrences over which the historian
may well linger. It was not delayed until slavery had become
unprofitable,[234] nor was it forced through any violent hostility.
It was a result attained merely by calm, steady persuasion, and a
disposition to obey the dictates of conscience unflinchingly. As such
it is among the grandest examples of the triumph of principle and ideal
righteousness over self-interest.[235] It may well be doubted whether
any body of men and women other than the Friends were capable of such
conduct at this time.[236]
So far the checking of slavery in Pennsylvania had been the result of
two great factors; that the Germans would not hold slaves, and that the
Friends gradually gave them up. Another factor now made it possible
to bring about the end of the institution altogether. There began the
period of the long contest of the Revolution, when Pennsylvania was
stirred to its depths by the struggle for independence.
Almost at the beginning of the war, in 1776, the Assembly received
from citizens of Philadelphia two petitions that manumission be
rendered easier. These petitions accomplished nothing,[237] but the
feeling which had been gathering strength for so many years went
forward unchecked, and by 1778 there existed a powerful sentiment
in favor of legislative abolition. Therefore in February, 1779, the
draft of a bill was prepared and recommended by the Council; but for
a while no progress was made, since the Assembly, though it approved
the principle, believed that such a measure should originate in
itself.[238] Toward the end of the year the matter was taken up in
earnest, and a bill was soon drafted. Public sentiment was thoroughly
aroused now. Petitions for and against the bill came to the Assembly,
and letters were published in the newspapers. The friends of the
measure were untiring in their efforts. Anthony Benezet is said to have
visited every member of the Assembly. On March 1, 1780, the bill was
enacted into a law, thirty-four yeas and twenty-one nays.[239]
The "Act for the gradual Abolition of Slavery" provided that thereafter
no child born in Pennsylvania should be a slave; but that such
children, if negroes or mulattoes born of a slave mother, should be
servants until they were twenty-eight years of age; that all present
slaves should be registered by their masters before November 1, 1780;
and that such as were not then registered should be free.[240] It
abolished the old discriminations, for it provided that negroes
whether slave or free should be tried and punished in the same manner
as white people, except that a slave was not to be admitted to
witness against a freeman.[241] The earlier special legislation was
repealed.[242]
The act of 1780, which was principally the work of George Bryan,[243]
was the final, decisive step in the destruction of slavery in
Pennsylvania. The buying and selling of human beings as chattels
had become repugnant to the best thought of the state, and it had
partly passed away. The practice still survived, however, in many
quarters, and strengthened as it was by considerations of economy and
convenience, it would probably have gone on for many years. Against
this the abolition law struck a mortal blow. From the day of March 1,
1780, the little remnant of slavery slowly withered and passed away.
In the course of a generation, except for some scattered cases, it had
vanished altogether.
Pennsylvania was the first state to pass an abolition law.[244] In
after years this became a matter of great pride. Her legislators and
statesmen frequently boasted of it. Not only was the priority a glory
in itself, but the manner in which Pennsylvania conceived the law, and
the success with which she carried it out, furnished the states that
lay near her a splendid example and a strong incentive which not a few
of them followed shortly thereafter.[245]
Yet this law was open to some objections, and for different reasons
received much criticism. First, it was loosely and obscurely drawn in
some of its sections, and these gave rise to litigation.[246] In the
second place, it was largely ineffectual to prevent certain abuses
which had been foreseen when it was discussed, and which assumed
alarming proportions in a few years. Some Pennsylvanians openly kept up
the slave-trade outside of Pennsylvania, and masters within the state
sold their slaves into neighboring states, whither they sent also their
young negroes, who there remained slaves instead of acquiring freedom
at twenty-eight.[247] They even sent away for short periods their
female slaves when pregnant, so that the children might not be born on
the free soil of Pennsylvania. Besides this the kidnapping of free
negroes went on unchecked.[248]
These practices did not escape unprotested. The Friends were
indefatigable in their efforts to stop them, and the government was
not disposed to allow the work of 1780 to be undone.[249] So in 1788
was passed an act to explain and enforce the previous one. It provided
that the births of the children of slaves were to be registered; that
husband and wife were not to be separated more than ten miles without
their consent; that pregnant females should not be sent out of the
state pending their delivery; and it forbade the slave-trade under
penalty of one thousand pounds. Heavy punishments were provided for
such chicanery as had previously been employed.[250]
This legislation was enforced by the courts in constructions which
favored freedom wherever possible. Exact justice was dealt out, but
if the master had neglected in the smallest degree to comply with the
precise conditions specified in the laws, whether through carelessness,
mistake, or unavoidable circumstance, the authorities generally
showed themselves glad to declare the slave free.[251] The Friends
and abolitionists were particularly active in hunting up pretexts
and instituting law-suits for the purpose of setting at liberty the
negroes of people who believed they were obeying the laws, but who had
neglected to comply with some technical point.[252]
While these devotees of freedom were harassing the enemy they were
engaged in operations much more drastic. The laws for abolition,
respecting as they did the sacredness of right in property, had not
abrogated existing titles to slaves.[253] This the abolitionists
denounced as theft, and resolved to get justice by cutting out slavery
root and branch.[254]
First they attacked it in the courts. The declaration of rights in the
constitution of 1790 declared that all men were born equally free and
independent, and had an inherent right to enjoy and defend life and
liberty.[255] In 1792 a committee of the House refused the petition of
some slaveholders on the ground that slavery was not only unlawful in
itself, but also repugnant to the constitution.[256] This point was
seized upon by the abolitionists, who resolved to test it before the
law. Accordingly they arranged the famous case of Negro Flora _v._
Joseph Graisberry, and brought it up to the Supreme Court of the state
in 1795. It was not settled there, but went up to what was at that
time the ultimate judicial authority in Pennsylvania, the High Court
of Errors and Appeals. Some seven years after the question had first
been brought to law this august tribunal decided after lengthy and
able argument that negro slavery did legally exist before the adoption
of the constitution of 1790, and that it had not been abolished
thereby.[257]
Failing to destroy slavery in the courts the abolitionists strove to
demolish it by legal enactment. For this purpose they began a campaign
that lasted for two generations. In 1793 the Friends petitioned the
Senate for the complete abolition of slavery, and in 1799 they sent a
memorial showing their deep concern at the keeping of slaves. In the
following year citizens of Philadelphia prayed for abolition, and a few
days later the free blacks of the city petitioned that their brethren
in bondage be set free, suggesting that a tax be laid upon themselves
to help compensate the masters dispossessed. The demand for freedom
was supported in other quarters of the state, and undoubtedly a strong
feeling was aroused. The Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of
Slavery began the practice, which it kept up for so many years, of
regularly memorializing the legislature. Later on some of the leading
men of the state took up the cause, and once the governor in his
message referred to the galling yoke of slavery and its stain upon the
commonwealth.[258]
It is probable, however, that the majority of the people in the state
believed that enough had been done, and desired to see the little
remaining slavery quietly extinguished by the operation of such laws
as were effecting the extinction. Be this as it may, it is certain
that although many bills were proposed to effect total and immediate
abolition, some of which had good prospects of success, yet each one
was gradually pared of its most radical provisions, and in the end was
always found to lack the support requisite to make it a law.
In 1797 the House had a resolution offered and a bill prepared for
abolition. This measure dragged along through the next two sessions,
but in 1800 so much encouragement came from the city and counties that
the work was carried on in earnest. The course of this bill illustrates
the progress of others. At first the proposed enfranchisement was to
be immediate and for all; then it was modified to affect only negroes
over twenty-eight. In this form it passed the House by a handsome
majority, but in the Senate it was postponed to the next session. When
finally its time came the committee having it in charge reported that
as slavery was not in accordance with the constitution of 1790, a law
to do away with slavery was not needed. The measure was still mentioned
as unfinished business about the time that the High Court decided that
slavery was in accordance with the constitution after all.[259]
The abolitionists did not lose heart. They tried again in 1803, and
again the following year. In 1811 a little was done in the House,
and in 1821 the matter was discussed in the Senate. In this latter
year a bill was prepared and debated, but nothing passed except the
motion to postpone indefinitely. Indeed the movement had now spent its
force, and was thereafter confined to futile petitions that showed more
earnestness of purpose than expectation of success.[260]
This is easily explicable when it is understood how rapidly slavery
had declined. The number of slaves in Pennsylvania had never been
large. By the first Federal census they were put at less than four
thousand; but within a decade they had diminished by more than half,
and ten years later there were only a few hundred scattered throughout
the state.[261] The majority of these slaves during the later years
were living in the western counties that bordered on Maryland and
Virginia, where slavery had begun latest and lingered longest.[262] In
Philadelphia and the older counties it had almost entirely disappeared.
So rapid was the decline that as early as 1805 the Pennsylvania
Abolition Society reported that in the future it would devote itself
less to seeking the liberation of negroes than to striving to improve
those already free. This could only mean that they were finding very
few to liberate.[263]
That the decreasing agitation for the entire abolition of slavery in
Pennsylvania was due to the decline of slavery and not to any decrease
in hostility to it, is shown by the character of other legislation
demanded, and the readiness with which stringent laws were passed.
The act of 1780 permitted the resident of another state to bring his
slave into Pennsylvania and keep him there for six months.[264] A very
strong feeling developed against this. In 1795 it was necessary for the
Supreme Court to declare that such a right was valid. It was afterwards
decided, however, that if the master continued to take his slave in
and out of Pennsylvania for short periods, the slave should be free.
Again and again the legislature was asked to withdraw the privilege.
It is needless to recount the petitions that never ceased to come,
and at times poured in like a flood. At last the pressure of popular
feeling could no longer be held back, and after the legislation of
1847 following the memorable case of Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, when a
slave was brought by his master within the bounds of Pennsylvania, that
moment by state law he was free.[265]
Long before this time the passage through the state of slaves bound
with chains had awakened the pity of those who saw it.[266] In 1816 it
was decided that in certain cases if a runaway slave gave birth to a
child in Pennsylvania the child was free.[267] Later the legislature
forbade state officers to give any assistance in returning fugitives;
and at last lacked but little of giving fugitives trial by jury.
If it be asked whether at this time Pennsylvania was not rather
decrying slavery among her neighbors than destroying it within her own
gates, since beyond denial she still had slavery there, it must be
answered that first, her slavery as regards magnitude was a veritable
mote, and secondly, since after 1830, for example, there was not
one slave in Pennsylvania under fifty years old, it was far more to
the advantage of the negroes to remain in servitude where the law
guaranteed them protection and good treatment, than to be set free,
when their color and their declining years would have rendered their
well-being doubtful. It is probable that such slavery as existed there
in the last years was based rather on the kindness of the master
and the devotion of the slave, than on the power of the one and the
suffering of the other. It was a peaceful passing away. And so in
connection with slavery Pennsylvania is seen to have been fortunate.
Seeing at an early time the pernicious consequences of such an
institution she was able, such were the circumstances of her economic
environment, and such was the character of her people, to check it so
effectually that it never assumed threatening bulk. Almost as quick
to perceive the evil of it, she acted, and while others moralized and
lamented, she set her slaves free. Moreover as if to atone for the
sin of slave-keeping she granted her freedmen such privileges that it
seemed to her ardent idealists that the future could not but promise
well.
Whether this liberality came to be a matter of regret in after
years, and whether because of circumstances sure to come, but as yet
unforeseen, it was possible for the experience of Pennsylvania with her
free black population to be as happy as that with her slaves, it will
be the purpose of later chapters to enquire.
FOOTNOTES:
[200] Edmundson's _Journal_, 61. Janney, _History of the Friends_,
III, 178.
[201] Pennypacker, "The Settlement of Germantown," in _Pa. Mag._,
IV, 28; McMaster, "The Abolition of Slavery in the United
States," in _Chatauquan_, XV, 24, 25 (Apr., 1892). For the
protest against slavery and the slave-trade (_De instauranda
Æthiopum Salute_, Madrid, 1647) of the Jesuit, Alfonso
Sandoval, _cf._ Saco, _Historia de la Esclavitud de la Raza
Africana en el Nuevo Mundo_, 253-256.
[202] Pennypacker, _place cited_; Learned, _Life of Francis Daniel
Pastorius_, 261, 262. Facsimile of protest in Ridgway Branch
of the Library Company of Philadelphia.
[203] The Monthly Meeting declared "we think it not expedient for us
to meddle with it here." Pennypacker, _place cited_, 30, 31.
[204] Watson, _Annals_, II, 262. "An Exhortation and Caution To
Friends Concerning buying or keeping of Negroes," in _Pa.
Mag._, XIII, 265-270. This is said to have been the first
printed protest against slavery in America. _Cf._ Hildeburn,
_A Century of Printing_, etc., I, 28, 29; Gabriel Thomas,
_Account_, 53; Bettle, _Notes_, 367.
[205] Clarkson, _Life of Penn_, II, 78, 79.
[206] _Cf._ Bettle, 372.
[207] _Ibid._, 373.
[208] _Ibid._, 377.
[209] "Whereas several Papers have been read relating to the keeping
and bringing in of Negroes ... it is the advice of this
Meeting, that Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing
in of any more Negroes" ... MS. "Negroes or Slaves," Yearly
Meeting Advices, 1682-1777 (1696). "This meeting is also
dissatisfied with Friends buying and incouriging the bringing
in of Negroes" ... MS. Chester Quarterly Meeting Minutes, 6
6th mo., 1711. "There having a conscern Come upon severall
friends belonging to this meeting Conscerning the Importation
of Negros ... after some time spent in the Consideration
thereof it is the Unanimous sence of this meeting that friends
should not be concerned hereafter in the Importation thereof
nor buy any" ... MS. Chester Monthly Meeting Minutes, 27 4th
mo., 1715. MS. Chester Quarterly Meeting Minutes, 1 6th mo.,
1715. "This meeting have been for some time under a Concern by
reason of the great Quantity of Negros fetched and imported
into this Country." _Ibid._, 11 6th mo., 1729. MS. Yearly
Meeting Minutes, 19-23 7th mo., 1730. As soon as Friends had
been brought to cease the importation of negroes, attack was
made upon the practice of Friends buying negroes imported by
others. _Cf._ MS. Chester Q. M. M., 11 6th mo., 1729; 9 9th
mo., 1730. The MS. Chester M. M. M. mention 100 books on the
slave-trade for circulation.
[210] "We also kindly received your advice about negro slaves, and
we are one with you, that the multiplying of them, may be of
a dangerous consequence, and therefore a Law was made in
Pennsylvania laying Twenty pounds Duty upon every one imported
there, which Law the Queen was pleas'd to disanull, we would
heartily wish that a way might be found to stop the bringing
in more here, or at least that Friends may be less concerned
in buying or selling, of any that may be brought in, and hope
for your assistance with the Government if any farther Law
should be made discouraging the importation. We know not of
any Friend amongst us that has any hand or concern in bringing
any out of their own Country." MS. Yearly M. M., 22 7th mo.,
1714. This was written in reply to the London Yearly Meeting,
and alludes to the act passed in 1712. See above, p. 3.
[211] See above, p. 65. _Cf._ also P. C. Plockhoy's principle laid
down in his _Kort en Klaer Ontwerp_ (Amsterdam, 1662): "No
lordship or servile slavery shall burden our Company." Quoted
in Pennypacker, _Settlement of Germantown_, 204, 292.
[212] "The Germans seldom hire men to work upon their farms." Rush,
_An Account of the Manners of the German Inhabitants of
Pennsylvania_ (1789), 24. "They never, as a general thing,
had colored servants or slaves." _Ibid._, 24 (note by Rupp).
"Slaves in Pennsylvania never were as numerous in proportion
to the white population as in New York and New Jersey. To our
German population this is certainly attributable--Wherever
they or their numerous descendants located they preferred
_their own_ labor to that of negro slaves." Buck, MS. _History
of Bucks County_, 69. "Of all the nations who have settled in
America, the Germans have availed themselves the least of the
unjust and demoralizing aid of slavery." W. Grimshaw, _History
of the United States_, 79. The truth of these statements is
revealed in the tax-lists of the different counties. Thus,
in Berks County there were 2692 German tax-payers (61%) and
1724 (39%) not Germans. Of these 44 Germans held 62 slaves,
and 57 of other nationalities held 92 slaves. 3 _Pa. Arch._,
XVIII, 303-430. In York County, where there were 2051 German
property-holders (34%) and 3993 who were not Germans (66%),
27 Germans held 44 slaves as against 178 others who held 319
slaves. 3 _Pa. Arch._, XXI, 165-324. (Both these estimates are
for 1780.) In Lancaster County the property-holders included
approximately 3475 Germans (48%) and 3706 not Germans (52%).
Here 31 Germans held 46 slaves, while 200 not Germans held 402
slaves. 3 _Pa. Arch._, XVII, 489-685 (1779). The records of
the German churches rarely mention slaves.
[213] The small number of negroes in Pennsylvania was often
noticed. Burnaby, _Travels through the Middle Settlements_,
63, said "there are few negroes or slaves" ... (1759),
Anburey, _Travels through the Interior Parts of America_, II,
280-281, said, "The Pennsylvanians ... are more industrious
of themselves, having but few blacks among them." (1778).
_Cf._ Proud, _History_, II, 274. Estimates as to the number
of Germans in Pennsylvania vary from 3/5 (1747, _cf._ Rupp's
note in Rush, _Account_, 1) to 1/3 (1789, _ibid._, 54). For
many estimates _cf._ Diffenderffer, _German Immigration into
Pennsylvania_, pt. II, _The Redemptioners_, 99-108. Some few
Germans had intended to hold slaves from the first. _Cf._ the
articles of agreement between the members of the Frankfort
Company (1686): ... "alle ... leibeigenen Menschen ... sollen
unter Allen Interessenten pro rato der Ackerzahl gemein seyn."
MS. in possession of S. W. Pennypacker, Philadelphia.
[214] Watson, (MS.) Annals, 530. The same spirit is apparent much
later. "There generally appeared an uneasiness in their minds
respecting them, tho all are not so fully convinced of the
Iniquity of the practice as to get over the difficulty which
they apprehend would attend their giving them their liberty"
... MS. Abstract Rec. Gwynedd Monthly Meeting, 278 (1770).
"Perhaps thou wilt say, 'I do not buy any negroes: I only use
those left me by my father.' But is it enough to satisfy your
own conscience?" Benezet, _Notes on the Slave Trade_, 8.
[215] _Votes and Proceedings_, II, 110; _The Friend_, XXVIII, 293,
and following; A. C. Thomas, "The Attitude of the Society
of Friends toward Slavery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries, Particularly in Relation to Its Own Members," in
_Amer. Soc. Church History_, VIII, 273, 274.
[216] "Ralph Sandiford C^r for Cash receiv'd of Benj^a Lay for 50
of his Books which he intends to give away ... 10" (sh.) MS.
Benjamin Franklin's Account Book, Feb. 28, 1732-1733.
[217] Sandiford, _Mystery of Iniquity_, 43; Vaux, _Memoirs of the
Lives of Benjamin Lay and Ralph Sandiford_; _The Friend_, L,
170; Thomas, _Attitude_, 274; Franklin, _Works_ (ed. Sparks),
X, 403.
[218] _Cf. American Weekly Mercury_, Nov. 2, 1738, for notice in
which the Friends' Meeting denounces his _All Slave-Keepers
... Apostates_ (1737). _Cf._ anecdotes related by Vaux;
Bettle, _Notices_, 375, 376; _The Friend_, L, 170; Thomas,
_Attitude_, 274.
[219] Bettle, _Notices_, 378-382; Thomas, _Attitude_, 245, 275-279;
Tyler, _Literary History of the American Revolution_, II,
339-347; _The Friend_, LIII, 190; Woolman, _Journal_.
[220] Vaux, _Memoirs of Benezet_; _The Friend_, LXXI, 369; Thomas,
274, 275; Bettle, 382-387; Benezet's own writings.
[221] Thomas, 273. There must have been a great many other reformers
of considerable influence, but of less fame, about whose
work little has come down. _Cf._ "Thos. Nicholson on Keeping
Negroes" (1767). MS. in Misc. Coll., Box 10, Negroes.
[222] _Cf._ MS. Chester Q. M. M., 14 6th mo., 1738; 8 6th mo., 1743.
[223] Needles, _Memoir_, 13.
[224] Bettle, 377.
[225] The MS. Chester Q. M. M., 8 8th mo., 1763, say ... "we are not
quite clear of dealing in Negro's, but care is taken mostly
to discourage it ...." Three years later they add ... "clear
of importing or purchasing Negro's." _Ibid._, 11 8th mo.,
1766. _Cf._ also _ibid._, 10 8th mo., 1767; MS. Chester M.
M. Miscellaneous Papers, 28 1st mo., 1765; MS. Darby M. M.
M., II, 11, 12, 16, 19, (1764), 24, 27, 31, 33, 35, 38, 40,
42, 45, 46, (1764-1765). These references concern the case of
Enoch Eliot, who, having purchased two negroes, was repeatedly
urged to set them free, and finally did so. MS. Abstract Rec.
Abington M. M., 28 7th mo., 1760; 25 8th mo., 1760. "One of
the fr^{ds} app^d to visit Jonathan Jones reports they all had
an oppertunity With him s^d Jonathan, and that he gave them
exspectation of not making any more purchases of that kind, as
also he is sorry for the purchace he did make" ... _Ibid._, 24
11th mo., 1760; also _ibid._, 24 11th mo., 1760; 20 9th mo.,
1762; 29 10th mo., 1764.
[226] MS. Yearly M. M., 23-29 9th mo., 1758, where Friends are
earnestly entreated to "sett them at Liberty, making a
Christian Provision for them according to their Ages etc"....
_Cf._ report about George Ragan: ... "as to his Buying and
selling a Negro, he saith he Cannot see the Evil thereof, and
therefore cannot make any satisfaction, and as he has been
much Laboured with by this m^g to bring him to a sight of his
Error, This m^g therefore agreeable to a minute of our Yearly
M^g can do no Less than so far Testify ag^st him ... as not to
Receive his Collections, neither is he to sit in our m^{gs}
for Discipline until he can see his Error" ... MS. Abst.
Abington M. M., 288 (1761). _Cf._ Michener, _Retrospect of
Early Quakerism_, 346, 347; _A Brief Statement of the rise and
Progress of the Testimony of the Religious Society of Friends,
against Slavery and the Slave Trade_, 21-24; Sharpless, _A
History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania_, II, 229;
Needles, 13. For the fervid feeling at this time _cf._
_Journal of John Churchman_ (1756), in _Friends' Library_, VI,
236.
[227] Bettle, 378; Sharpless, II, 229. _Cf._ also _Journal of Daniel
Stanton_, in _Friends' Library_, XII, 167.
[228] MS. Abst. Abington M. M., 328, 336, 347, 351, 358, 368, 372,
398; MS. Min. Sadsbury M. M., 1737-8--1783, pp. 270, 290; MS.
Min. Radnor M. M., 1772-1782, pp. 63, 66, 71, 102, 103, 107,
etc.; MS. Min. Women's Q. M., Bucks Co., 26 8th mo., 1779; 30
8th mo., 1781; MS. Darby M. M. M., II, 87, 91, 93, (1769), 178
(1774), 180, 181, 184, 186, 190 (1775), 309, 312 (1780); MS.
Women's Min. Darby M. M., 2 2d mo., 1775; 30 3rd mo., 1775; 3
8th mo., 1780; 31 8th mo., 1780; MS. Extracts Buckingham M.
M., 128, 130, 136 (1767-1768); MS. Diary of Richard Barnard,
24 9th mo., 1774; 7 6th mo., 1780; MS. Journal of Joshua
Brown, 11th mo., 1775; above all the MS. Diary of James Moon,
_passim_. _Cf._ Sharpless, _Quakerism and Politics_, 159-178;
Whittier's introduction to John Woolman's _Journal_.
[229] Futhey and Cope, _History of Chester Co._, 423.
[230] _Cf._ Abst. Rec. Gwynedd M. M., 201, 204, 213, 218, 240, 270,
271, 273, 278, 280, 307, 311, 312, 316, 321, 322, 323, 336,
348, 374, 471; MS. Papers Middletown M. M., 1759-1786, pp.
386, 388, 389, 390; Franklin, _Works_, (ed. Sparks). VIII, 42.
[231] _Brief Statement_, 49.
[232] MS. Yearly M. M., 27 9th mo., 1776; _Brief Statement_, 24-27;
Needles, 13; Thomas, 245; Sharpless, _History of Quaker
Government in Pennsylvania_, II, 138, 139.
[233] _Brief Statement_, 31-35; Needles, 13; Sharpless, II, 226.
For some years the Meetings continued to make regular reports
on this subject. "7th No Slaves among us and such of their
Offspring as are under our Care are generally pretty well
provided for." MS. Rec. Warrington Q. M., 25 8th mo., 1788.
[234] In the absence of a plantation system slavery in Pennsylvania
never was profitable in the same sense as in Virginia or South
Carolina, and where white labor could be obtained slavery
could not compete. _Cf._ Franklin, _Works_, II, 314, 315
(1751). But as it was almost impossible to obtain sufficient
white labor, or at least to retain it, slavery as it existed
in Pennsylvania was profitable throughout the colonial period.
For the strong desire to import, see above, chap. I. For
the high prices paid in the first quarter of the nineteenth
century for the right to hold negroes to the age of 28, see
below, p. 94.
[235] This is my judgment after a careful investigation of the
Friends' records. Adam Smith, who had not seen these records,
but who wrote just when the work was being completed, thought
differently. _Wealth of Nations_ (ed. Rogers), I, 391.
[236] Other sects followed the example of the Friends, _cf._
Ebeling, IV, 220, but their work was mostly significant in
connection with the legislative work of the Assembly. For the
effects of the work of the Friends _cf._ Bowden, _History of
the Friends_, II, 221.
[237] _Votes and Proceedings_, 1767-1776, p. 696.
[238] 1 _Pa. Arch._, VII, 79; _Journal of House of Rep._, 1776-1781,
p. 311.
[239] _Col. Rec._, XII, 99; _Pa. Packet_, Sept. 16, 1779; _Journals
of House, 1776-1781_, pp. 392, 394, 399, 412, 424, 435;
_Packet_, Mar. 13, 1779; Dec. 25, 1779; Jan. 1, 1780;
_Gazette_, Dec. 29, 1779; Vaux, _Memoirs of Benezet_, 92. The
distribution of the vote seems to have had no political, no
religious, and probably no economic significance. The measure
was popular in and out of the Assembly. _Packet_, Dec. 25,
1779; _Jour. of House, 1776-1781_, p. 435. An earlier bill
had been published in the _Packet_, Mar. 4, 1779. It is very
interesting. The bill as finally drafted became the first act
for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Accordingly
its authors had to do much original and constructive work.
In the course of the work their ideas underwent some change,
and the transition is easily seen in comparing the first bill
of 1779 with the act as passed in 1780. In some respects the
first is more liberal than the second; in other respects
less so. Thus at first it was intended to make the children
of slaves servants until twenty-one only. (_Packet_, Mar. 4,
1779). "A Citizen" discussing this objected that the master
would receive inadequate compensation for rearing negro
children, and urged that the age limit be made twenty-eight
or even thirty. (_Packet_, Mar. 13, 1779), and so pay for the
unproductive years, which was but just. The law made the age
twenty-eight. On the other hand it was at first proposed to
continue the prohibition of intermarriage and the permission
to bind out idle free negroes. (_Packet_, Mar. 4, 1779). Both
these provisions were omitted from the law.
[240] _Stat. at L._, X, 67-73; 2 Sergeant and Rawle, 305-309. Many
of the Friends thought that negroes ought not to be held after
they were twenty-one. _Cf._ MS. Rec. Pa. Soc. Abol. Sl., I,
23. Very many masters lost their negroes through failing to
register them, through ignorance of the provision requiring
registry, or through carelessness in complying with it. _Cf._
Rush, _Considerations upon the Present Test-Law_, (2nd ed.), 7
(note); _Journals of House, 1776-1781_, p. 537, and following;
4 _Pa. Arch._, III, 822. _Cf._ Christopher Marshall's
Remembrancer, F, Oct. 10, 1780: ... "gott our Negro Recorded."
_Cf. York Herald_, Apr. 26, 1797. The limit was extended
to Jan. 1, 1783, in favor of the citizens of Washington and
Westmoreland counties, previously under the jurisdiction of
Virginia. _Stat. at L._, X, 463. Runaways from other states
were of course not made free by this provision. _Cf._ sect.
VIII of act.
[241] The repeal of this section was proposed the next year, but
failed by three votes. _Cf. Journals of House, 1776-1781_,
p. 605. It was finally repealed in 1847.
[242] Sect. X of act.
[243] For the view that it was drafted by William Lewis, _cf. Pa.
Mag._, XIV, 14; Robert E. Randall, _Speech on the Laws of the
State relative to Fugitive Slaves_, 6; Horace Binney, _Leaders
of the Old Bar of Philadelphia_, 25. There can be little
doubt, however, that full credit should be given to Bryan.
"He framed and executed the 'act'" ... Obituary notice in the
_Gazette_, Feb. 2, 1791. _Cf._ inscription on his tomb-stone,
copy in Inscriptions in the Burying Ground of the Second
Presbyterian Church Phila. (MS. H. S. P.); _Mem. Hist. Soc.
Pa._, I, 408-410; Konkle, _Life and Times of Thomas Smith_,
105.
[244] Vermont had forbidden slavery by her constitution of 1777.
Poore, II, 1859.
[245] Its significance in this respect is remarked by Bowden,
_History of the Friends_, II, 220. Connecticut and Rhode
Island provided for abolition in 1784, New York in 1799, New
Jersey in 1804. The same was accomplished in Massachusetts
in 1780, and in New Hampshire in 1792, by construction of
the constitution. Among many instances where Pennsylvania
pointed to her great act with pride, _cf. Acts of Assembly,
1819-20_, p. 199; 4 _Pa. Arch._, VI, 242, 290. Albert
Gallatin, writing to Charles Brown, Mar. 1, 1838, says: "It is
indeed a great subject of pride ... that as one of the United
States she was the first to abolish slavery" ... _Writings_
(ed. Adams), II, 523, 524.
[246] 1 Dallas 469; 14 Sergeant and Rawle 443-446; 1 _Pa. Arch._,
VIII, 720.
[247] _Pa. Mag._, XV, 372, 373. The selling-price elsewhere was
greater since it included the price of the posterity.
[248] Brissot de Warville, _Mémoire sur les Noirs de l'Amérique
Septentrionale_, 19.
[249] _Minutes of Assembly, 1787-1788_, pp. 104, 134, 135, 137,
159, 164, 177, 197; _Packet_, Mar. 13, 1788; _Diary of Jacob
Hiltzheimer_, 144.
[250] _Laws of Pennsylvania_ (Carey and Bioren), III, 268-272.
Despite this many negroes continued to be sold out of the
state, and in 1795 the Pa. Soc. Abol. Sl. was asking for a
more stringent law. _Cf._ MS. Rec. of Soc., IV, 191. Also
MS. Supreme Court Papers, nos. 3, 4, (1795). As late as 1796
the author of the _Reise von Hamburg nach Philadelphia_
says: "Häufig kommen, in Philadelphia vorzüglich ... grosze
Transporte von Sclaven von Africa vorüber," p. 24.
[251] 1 Dallas 491, 492; 2 Dallas 224-228; 3 Sergeant and Rawle
396-402; 2 Yeates 234, 449; 3 _id._ 259-261; 4 _id._ 115, 116;
6 Binney 206-211; MS. Sup. Ct. Papers, I, 1; MS. Rec. Pa. Soc.
Abol. Sl., I, 197.
[252] 2 Rawle, 204-206; 1 Penrose and Watts 93. _Cf. Min. of
Assembly, 1785-1786_, pp. 168, 169.
[253] 14 Sergeant and Rawle 442; Brissot, _Mémoire_, 20.
[254] Brissot, _Mémoire_, 21. _Cf._ the severe censure in _Why
Colored People in Philadelphia Are Excluded from the Street
Cars_ (1866), 23.
[255] Art. IX, sect. 1.
[256] _Journal of the House, 1792-1793_, pp. 39, 55.
[257] MS. Docket Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, XXVII, 379. The suit
was on a writ "de homine replegiando." _Cf._ Stroud, _Sketch
of the Laws Relating to Slavery in the Several States of the
United States of America_ (2d ed.), 227 (note); MS. Docket
of the High Court of Errors and Appeals, 1780-1808, p. 126;
_Pa. Gazette_, Feb. 3, 1802; Report of Pa. Soc. Abol. Sl. in
_Minutes Sixth Convention Abol. Soc., Phila., 1800_, p. 7.
It was the different decision of an exactly similar question
that abolished slavery in Massachusetts. _Cf._ Littleton _v._
Tuttle, 4 Massachusetts 128.
[258] _Journal of Senate, 1792-1793_, pp. 150, 151; _1798-1799_, p.
149; _J. of H., 1799-1800_, pp. 76, 123, 153, 160, 172, 190;
_J. of S., 1799-1800_, p. 223; _J. of S., 1800-1801_, pp. 134,
135; _J. of H., 1802-1803_, p. 218; _J. of H., 1811-1812_, pp.
24, 216; 4 _Pa. Arch._, IV, 757, for Governor Snyder's message.
[259] _J. of H., 1796-1797_, pp. 283, 308, 354, 355; _J. of H.,
1797-1798_, pp. 75, 269; _J. of H., 1798-1799_, pp. 20, 354;
_J. of H., 1799-1800_, pp. 23, 76, 93, 123, 153, 160, 162,
172, 176, 190, 236, 303, 304, 306, 309, 310, 313, 314, 330,
358, 376; _J. of S., 1799-1800_, pp. 144, 223, 235. The bill
passed the House 54 to 15. _J. of S., 1800-1801_, p. 175; _J.
of S., 1801-1802_, p. 24.
[260] _J. of H., 1802-1803_, pp. 361, 362; _1804-1805_, p. 61; _Pa.
Gazette_, Feb. 1, 1804; _J. of H., 1811-1812_, pp. 58, 67,
216; _J. of. S., 1820-1821_, p. 33; _Phila. Gazette_, Mar.
6, 1821; _J. of S., 1820-1821_, pp. 105, 308, 469, 531, 532,
535, 536. For the provisions of such a bill--the abolition
of slavery and of servitude until twenty-eight--compensation
of owners--permission for negroes to remain slaves if they
so desired--_cf. House Report_ no. 399 (1826); _J. of H.,
1825-1826_, pp. 370, 375, 396, 497, 498. Also _J. of S.,
1841_, vol. I, 249, 294.
[261] The numbers were 1790, _3737_; 1800, _1706_; 1810, _795_;
1820, _211_; 1830, _67_; 1840, _64_ (?). The U. S. Census
Reports do not mention any after 1840, but it is said that
James Clark of Donegal Township, Lancaster County, held a
slave in 1860. _Cf._ W. J. McKnight, _Pioneer Outline History
of Northwestern Pennsylvania_, 311. It is necessary to remark
that the U. S. Census reported _386_ as the number of slaves
in 1830. As this was in increase of 175 over the number
reported in 1820, it aroused consternation in Pennsylvania and
amazement elsewhere, so that a committee of the Senate was
immediately appointed to investigate. Their account showed
that there had been no increase but a substantial diminution
in numbers; and that the U. S. officers had been grossly
careless, if not positively ignorant in their work. _J. of S.,
1832-1833_, vol. I, 141, 148, 482-487; _Hazard's Register_,
IV, 380; IX, 270-272, 395; XI, 158, 159; _African Repository
and Colonial Journal_, VII, 315.
[262] _Cf. J. of S., 1821-1822_, pp. 214, 215.
[263] _Minutes Tenth American Convention Abol. Sl., Phila., 1805_,
p. 13.
[264] _Stat. at L._, X, 71.
[265] Respublica _v._ Richards, 2 Dallas 224-228; Commonwealth _v._
Smyth, 1 Browne 113, 114; _Laws of Assembly, 1847_, p. 208.
This law was affirmed by the courts in 1849. Kauffman _v._
Oliver 10 _Pa. State Rep._ (Barr), 517-518. It was at times
contested by the citizens of other states, as in the famous
episode of J. H. Wheeler's slaves in 1855. _Cf. Narrative of
Facts in the Case of Passmore Williamson_. In this case the
Federal District Court held that Pa. had no jurisdiction over
the right of transit. In 1860 a negress was brought from Va.
to Pa. She was at once told that she was free; but when her
master returned she went back with him. _Phila. Inquirer_,
Aug. 29, 1860.
[266] _J. of H., 1821-1822_, pp. 628, 637, 950; _J. of S.,
1821-1822_, pp. 325, 330, 331. For a vivid description _cf._
Parrish, _Remarks on the Slavery of the Black People_ (1806),
21.
[267] If the mother had absconded before she became pregnant.
Commonwealth _v._ Holloway (1816), 2 Sergeant and Rawle 305.
_Cf. Niles's Weekly Register_, X, 400.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
Edward Raymond Turner was born May 28, 1881, in Baltimore, Maryland,
where he obtained his earlier education. After receiving the degree of
Bachelor of Arts at St. Johns College, Annapolis, 1904, he taught in
the Baltimore schools. He entered the Johns Hopkins University in 1907,
and was Fellow in History 1909-1910.
Transcriber's Note
A reference to p. 111 in note 87 on p. 29 seems incorrect. The
final page of this text is p. 88.
The following likely printer's errors were corrected:
p. 7 The Manufac[t]urer Added.
p. 26 Cf / _Cf_ Italic.
p. 27 n. 30 _Col. Rec._[,] I, 61; Added.
p. 47 n. 40 [_in Mem./in _Mem.] Hist. Soc. Pa._ Font error.
End of Project Gutenberg's Slavery in Pennsylvania, by Edward Raymond Turner