"XLIX. Provided always, and be it enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for each and every Justice, being in the commission of the peace for the county where any slave or slaves shall be tried, by virtue of this act, (who is owner of slaves) to sit upon such trial, and act as a member of such court though he or they be not summoned thereto; anything herein before contained to the contrary, in any wise, notwithstanding.

"L. And to the end such negro, mulatto or Indian, bond or free, not being christians, as shall hereafter be produced as an evidence on the trial of any slave or slaves, for capital or other crimes, may be under the greater obligation to declare the truth; Be it further enacted, There where any such negro, mulatto or Indian, bond or free, shall, upon due proof made, or pregnant circumstances, appearing before any county court within this government, be found to have given a false testimony, every such offender shall, without further trial, be ordered, by the said court, to have one ear nailed to the pillory, and there stand for the space of one hour, and the said ear to be cut off, and thereafter the other ear nailed in like manner, and cut off, at the expiration of one other hour: and moreover, to order every such offender thirty-nine lashes, well laid on, on his or her bare back, at the common whipping post.

"LI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That at every such trial of slaves committing capital or other offences, the first person in commission sitting on such trial, shall, before the examination of every negro, mulatto or Indian, not being a christian, charge such to declare the truth.

"LII. Provided always, and it is hereby intended, That the master, owner or overseer of any slave, to be arraigned and tried by virtue of this act, may appear at the trial, and make what just defence he can for such slave or slave; so that such defence do not relate to any formality in the proceeding on the trial."[501]

The manner of conducting the trials of Negroes charged with felony or misdemeanor was rather peculiar. Upon one or more white persons' testimony, or the evidence of Negroes and Indians, bond or free, the unfortunate defendant, "without the solemnity of a jury," before three justices and four freeholders, could be hurried through a trial, convicted, sentenced to die a dreadful death, and then be executed without the officiating presence of a minister of the gospel.

The unprecedented discretion allowed to masters in the government led to the most tragic results. Men were not only reckless of the lives of their own slaves, but violent toward those belonging to others. If a Negro showed the least independence in conversation with a white man, he could be murdered in cold blood; and it was only a case of a contumacious slave getting his dues. But men became so prodigal in the exercise of this authority that the public became alarmed, and the Legislature called a halt on the master-class. At first the Legislature paid for the slaves who were destroyed by the consuming wrath of ill-natured whites, but finally allowed an action to lie against the persons who killed a slave. This had a tendency to reduce the number of murdered slaves; but the fateful clause in the Locke Constitution had educated a voracious appetite for blood, and the extremest cruel treatment continued without abatement.

The free Negro population was very small in this colony. The following act on manumission differs so widely from the law on this point in the other colonies, that it is given as an illustration of the severe character of the legislation of North Carolina against the emancipation of Negroes.

"LVI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no Negro or mulatto slaves shall be set free, upon any pretence whatsoever, except for meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed of by the county court, and Licence thereupon first had and obtained: and that where any slave shall be set free by his or her master or owner, otherwise than is herein before directed, it shall and may be lawful for the church-wardens of the parish wherein such negro, mulatto or Indian, shall be found, at the expiration of six months, next alter his or her being set free, and they are hereby authorized and required, to take up and sell the said negro, mulatto or Indian, as a slave, at the next court to be held for the said county, at public vendue: and the monies arising by such sale, shall be applied to the use of the parish, by the vestry thereof: and if any negro, mulatto or Indian slave, set free otherwise than is herein directed, shall depart this province, within six months next after his or her freedom, and shall afterwards return into this government, it shall and may be lawful for the churchwardens of the parish where such negro or mulatto shall be found, at the expiration of one month, next after his or her return into this government to take up such negro or mulatto, and sell him or them, as slaves, at the next court to be held for the county, at public vendue; and the monies arising thereby, to be applied, by the vestry, to the use of the parish, as aforesaid."[502]

The free Negroes were badly treated. They were not allowed any communion with the slaves. A free Negro man was not allowed to marry a white woman, nor even a Negro slave woman without the consent of her master. If he formed an alliance with a white woman, her offspring were bound out, or sold by the church-wardens, until they obtained their majority.[503] If the white woman were an indentured servant, she was constrained to serve an additional year. If she were a free woman, she was sold for two years by the church-wardens. Free Negroes were greatly despised and shunned by both slaves and white people.

As a conspicuous proof of the glaring hypocrisy of the "nobility," who, in the constitution, threw open the door of the Church to the Negro, it should be said, that, during the period from the founding of the Province down to the colonial war, no attempt was ever made, through the ecclesiastical establishment, to dissipate the dark clouds of ignorance that enveloped the Negro's mind. They were left in a state of ignorance and crime. The gravest social evils were winked at by masters, whose lecherous examples were the occasion for the most grievous offending of the slaves. The Mulattoes and other free Negroes were taxed. They had no place in the militia, nor could they claim the meanest rights of the humblest "leetman."

FOOTNOTES:

[497] Bancroft, vol. ii., 5th ed. p. 148.

[498] Statutes of S.C., vol. i. pp. 53-55.

[499] Public Acts of N.C., vol. i. p. 64.

[500] This is an instance of humanity in the North-Carolina code worthy of special note. It stands as the only instance of justice toward the over-worked and under-fed slaves of the colony.

[501] Public Acts of N.C., p.65.

[502] Public Acts of N.C., p. 66.

[503] The Act of 1741 says, "until 31 years of age."



CHAPTER XXIII.

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.



CHAPTER XXIV.

THE COLONY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

1681-1775.

ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA.—THE SWEDES AND DUTCH PLANT SETTLEMENTS ON THE WESTERN BANK OF THE DELAWARE RIVER.—THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK SEEKS TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY OF PENNSYLVANIA.—THE FIRST LAWS AGREED UPON IN ENGLAND.—PROVISIONS OF THE LAW.—MEMORIAL AGAINST SLAVERY DRAUGHTED AND ADOPTED BY THE GERMANTOWN FRIENDS.—WILLIAM PENN PRESENTS A BILL FOR THE BITTER REGULATION OF SERVANTS.—AN ACT PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF NEGROES AND INDIANS.—RIGHTS OF NEGROES.—A DUTY LAID UPON NEGROES AND MULATTO SLAVES.—THE QUAKER THE FRIEND OF THE NEGRO.—ENGLAND BEINGS TO THREATEN HER DEPENDENCIES IN NORTH AMERICA.—THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA REFLECT UPON THE PROBABLE OUTRAGES THEIR NEGROES MIGHT COMMIT.

Long before there was an organized government in Pennsylvania, the Swedes and Dutch had planted settlements on the western bank of the Delaware River. But the English crown claimed the soil; and the governor of New York, under patent from the Duke of York, sought to exercise jurisdiction over the territory. On the 11th of July, 1681, "Conditions and Concessions were agreed upon by William Penn, Proprietary," and the persons who were "adventurers and purchasers in the same province." Provision was made for the punishment of persons who should injure Indians, and that the planter injured by them should "not be his own judge upon the Indian." All controversies arising between the whites and the Indians were to be settled by a council of twelve persons,—six white men and six Indians.

The first laws for the government of the colony were agreed upon in England, and in 1682 went into effect. Provision was made for the registering of all servants, their full names, amount of wages paid, and the time when they received their remuneration. It was strictly required that servants should not be kept beyond the time of their indenture, should be kindly treated, and the customary outfit furnished at the time of their freedom.

The baneful custom of enslaving Negroes had spread through every settlement in North America, and was even "tolerated in Pennsylvania under the specious pretence of the religious instruction of the slave."[509] In 1688 Francis Daniel Pastorius draughted a memorial against slavery, which was adopted by the Germantown Friends, and by them sent up to the Monthly Meeting, and thence to the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia.[510] The original document was found by Nathan Kite of Philadelphia in 1844.[511] It was a remarkable document, and the first protest against slavery issued by any religious body in America. Speaking of the slaves, Pastorius asks, "Have not these negroes as much right to fight for their freedom as you have to keep them slaves?" He believed the time would come,—

"When, from the gallery to the farthest seat, Slave and slave-owner shall no longer meet, But all sit equal at the Master's feet."

He regarded the "buying, selling, and holding men in slavery, as inconsistent with the Christian religion." When his memorial came before the Yearly Meeting for action, it confessed itself "unprepared to act," and voted it "not proper then to give a positive judgment in the case." In 1696 the Yearly Meeting pronounced against the further importation of slaves, and adopted measures looking toward their moral improvement. George Keith, catching the holy inspiration of humanity, with a considerable following, denounced the institution of slavery "as contrary to the religion of Christ, the rights of man, and sound reason and policy."[512]

While these efforts were, to a certain extent, abortive, yet, nevertheless, the Society of the Friends made regulations for the better treatment of the enslaved Negroes. The sentiment thus created went far toward deterring the better class of citizens from purchasing slaves. To his broad and lofty sentiments of humanity, the pious William Penn sought to add the force of positive law. The published views of George Fox, given at Barbadoes in 1671, in his "Gospel Family Order, being a short discourse concerning the ordering of Families, both of Whites, Blacks, and Indians," had a salutary effect upon the mind of Penn. In 1700 he proposed to the Council "the necessitie of a law [among others] about ye marriages of negroes." The bill was referred to a joint committee of both houses, and they brought in a bill "for regulating Negroes in their Morals and Marriages &c." It reached a second reading, and was lost.[513] Penn regarded the teaching of Negroes the sanctity of the marriage relation as of the greatest importance to the colony, and the surest means of promoting pure morals. Upon what grounds it was rejected is not known. He presented, at the same session of the Assembly, another bill, which provided "for the better regulation of servants in this province and territories." He desired the government of slaves to be prescribed and regulated by law, rather than by the capricious whims of masters. No servant was to be sold out of the Province without giving his consent, nor could he be assigned over except before a justice of the peace. It provided for a regular allowance to servants at the expiration of their time, and required them to serve five days extra for every day's absence from their master without the latter's assent. A penalty was fixed for concealing runaway slaves, and a reward offered for apprehending them. No free person was allowed to deal with servants, and justices and sheriffs were to be punished for neglecting their duties in the premises.

In case a Negro was guilty of murder, he was tried by two justices, appointed by the governor, before six freeholders. The manner of procedure was prescribed, and the nature of the sentence and acquittal. Negroes were not allowed to carry a gun or other weapons. Not more than four were allowed together, upon pain of a severe flogging. An Act for raising revenue was passed, and a duty upon imported slaves was levied, in 1710. In 1711-12, an Act was passed "to prevent the importation of negroes and Indians" into the Province. A general petition for the emancipation of slaves by law was presented to the Legislature during this same year; but the wise law-makers replied, that "it was neither just nor convenient to set them at liberty." The bill passed on the 7th of June, 1712, but was disapproved by Great Britain, and was accordingly repealed by an Act of Queen Anne, Feb. 20, 1713. In 1714 and 1717, Acts were passed to check the importation of slaves. But the English government, instead of being touched by the philanthropic endeavors of the people of Pennsylvania, was seeking, for purposes of commercial trade and gain, to darken the continent with the victims of its avarice.

Negroes had no political rights in the Province. Free Negroes were prohibited from entertaining Negro or Indian slaves, or trading with them. Masters were required, when manumitting slaves, to furnish security, as in the other colonies. Marriages between the races were forbidden. Negroes were not allowed to be abroad after nine o'clock at night.

In 1773 the Assembly passed "An Act making perpetual the Act entitled, An Act for laying a duty on negroes and mulatto slaves," etc., and added ten pounds to the duty. The colonists did much to check the vile and inhuman traffic; but, having once obtained a hold, it did eat like a canker. It threw its dark shadow over personal and collective interests, and poisoned the springs of human kindness in many hearts. It was not alone hurtful to the slave: it transformed and blackened character everywhere, and fascinated those who were anxious for riches beyond the power of moral discernment. Here, however, as in New Jersey, the Negro found the Quaker his practical friend; and his upper and better life received the pruning advice, refining and elevating influence, of a godly people. But intelligence in the slave was an occasion of offending, and prepared him to realize his deplorable situation. So to enlighten him was to excite in him a deep desire for liberty, and, not unlikely, a feeling of revenge toward his enslavers. So there was really danger in the method the guileless Friends adopted to ameliorate the condition of the slaves.

When England began to breathe out threatenings against her contumacious dependencies in North America, the people of Pennsylvania began to reflect upon the probable outrages their Negroes would, in all probability, commit. They inferred that the Negroes would be their enemy because they were their slaves. This was the equitable findings of a guilty conscience. They did not dare expect less than the revengeful hate of the beings they had laid the yoke of bondage upon; and verily they found themselves with "fears within, and fightings without."

FOOTNOTES:

[509] Gordon's History of Penn., p. 114.

[510] Whittier's Penn. Pilgrim, p. viii.

[511] The memorial referred to was printed in extenso in The Friend, vol. xviii. No 16.

[512] Minutes of Yearly Meeting, Watson's MS. Coll. Bettle's notices of N.S. Minutes, Penn. Hist. Soc.

[513] Colonial Rec., vol. i. pp. 598, 606. See also Votes of Assembly, vol. i. pp. 120-122.



CHAPTER XXV.

THE COLONY OF GEORGIA.

1732-1775.

GEORGIA ONCE INCLUDED IN THE TERRITORY OF CAROLINA.—THE THIRTEENTH COLONY PLANTED IN NORTH AMERICA BY THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT.—SLAVES RULED OUT ALTOGETHER BY THE TRUSTEES.—THE OPINION OF GEN. OGLETHORPE CONCERNING SLAVERY.—LONG AND BITTER DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF SLAVERY INTO THE COLONY.—SLAVERY INTRODUCED.—HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN GEORGIA.

Georgia was once included in the territory of Carolina, and extended from the Savannah to the St. John's River. A corporate body, under the title of "The Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia," was created by charter, bearing date of June 9, 1732. The life of their trust was for the space of twenty-one years. The rules by which the trustees sought to manage the infant were rather novel; but as a discussion of them would be irrelevant, mention can be made only of that part which related to slavery. Georgia was the last colony—the thirteenth—planted in North America by the English government. Special interest centred in it for several reasons, that will be explained farther on.

The trustees ruled out slavery altogether. Gen. John Oglethorpe, a brilliant young English officer of gentle blood, the first governor of the colony, was identified with "the Royal African Company, which alone had the right of planting forts and trading on the coast of Africa." He said that "slavery is against the gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England. We refused, as trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid crime." Another of the trustees, in a sermon preached on Sunday, Feb. 17, 1734, at St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, declared, "Slavery, the misfortune, if not the dishonor, of other plantations, is absolutely proscribed. Let avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of our own species as our wealth and possessions." Beautiful sentiments! Eloquent testimony against the crime of the ages! At first blush the student of history is apt to praise the sublime motives of the "trustees," in placing a restriction against the slave-trade. But the declaration of principles quoted above is not borne out by the facts of history. On this point Dr. Stevens, the historian of Georgia, observes, "Yet in the official publications of that body [the trustees], its inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not on humane and liberal grounds, and even Oglethorpe owned a plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina, about forty miles above Savannah."[514] To this reliable opinion is added:—

"The introduction of slaves was prohibited to the colony of Georgia for some years, not from motives of humanity, but for the reason it was encouraged elsewhere, to wit: the interest of the mother country. It was a favorite idea with the 'mother country,' to make Georgia a protecting blanket for the Carolinas, against the Spanish settlements south of her, and the principal Indian tribes to the west; to do this, a strong settlement of white men was sought to be built up, whose arms and interests would defend her northern plantations. The introduction of slaves was held to be unfavorable to this scheme, and hence its prohibition. During the time of the prohibition, Oglethorpe himself was a slave holder in Carolina."[515]

The reasons that led the trustees to prohibit slavery in the colony are put thus tersely.—

"1st. Its expense: which the poor emigrant would be entirely unable to sustain, either in the first cost of a negro, or his subsequent keeping. 2d. Because it would induce idleness and render labour degrading. 3d. Because the settlers, being freeholders of only fifty-acre lots, requiring but one or two extra hands for their cultivation, the German servants would be a third more profitable than the blacks. Upon the last original design I have mentioned, in planting this colony, they also based an argument against their admission, viz., that the cultivation of silk and wine, demanding skill and nicety, rather than strength and endurance of fatigue, the whites were better calculated for such labour than the negroes. These were the prominent arguments, drawn from the various considerations of internal and external policy, which influenced the Trustees in making this prohibition. Many of them, however, had but a temporary bearing, none stood the test of experience."[516]

It is clear, then, that the founders of the colony of Georgia were not moved by the noblest impulses to prohibit slavery within their jurisdiction. In the chapter on South Carolina, attention was called to the influence of the Spanish troops in Florida on the recalcitrant Negroes in the Carolinas, the Negro regiment with subalterns from their own class, and the work of Spanish emissaries among the slaves. The home government thought it wise to build up Georgia out of white men, who could develop its resources, and bear arms in defence of British possessions along an extensive border exposed to a pestiferous foe. But the Board of Trade soon found this an impracticable scheme, and the colonists themselves began to clamor "for the use of negroes."[517] The first petition for the introduction and use of Negro slaves was offered to the trustees in 1735. This prayer was promptly and positively denied, and for fifteen years they refused to grant all requests for the use of Negroes. They adhered to their prohibition in letter and spirit. Whenever and wherever Negroes were found in the colony, they were sold back into Carolina. In the month of December, 1738, a petition, addressed to the trustees, including nearly all the names of the foremost colonists, set forth the distressing condition into which affairs had drifted under the enforcement of the prohibition, and declared that "the use of negroes, with proper limitations, which, if granted, would both occasion great numbers of white people to come here, and also to render us capable to subsist ourselves, by raising provisions upon our lands, until we could make some produce fit for export, in some measure to balance our importations." But instead of securing a favorable hearing, the petition drew the fire of the friends of the prohibition against the use of Negroes. On the 3d of January, 1739, a petition to the trustees combating the arguments of the above-mentioned petition, and urging them to remain firm, was issued at Darien. This was followed by another one, issued from Ebenezer on the 13th of March, in favor of the position occupied by the trustees. A great many Scotch and German people had settled in the colony; and, familiar with the arts of husbandry, they became the ardent supporters of the trustees. James Habersham, the "dear fellow-traveller," of Whitefield, exclaimed,—

"I once thought, it was unlawful to keep negro slaves, but I am now induced to think God may have a higher end in permitting them to be brought to this Christian country, than merely to support their masters. Many of the poor slaves in America have already been made freemen of the heavenly Jerusalem, and possibly a time may come when many thousands may embrace the gospel, and thereby be brought into the glorious liberty of the children of God. These, and other considerations, appear to plead strongly for a limited use of negroes; for, while we can buy provisions in Carolina cheaper than we can here, no one will be induced to plant much."

But the trustees stood firm against the subtle cunning of the politicians, and the eloquent pleadings of avarice.

On the 7th October, 1741, a large meeting was held at Savannah, and a petition drawn, in which the land-holders and settlers presented their grievances to the English authorities in London. On the 26th of March, 1742, Mr. Thomas Stephens, armed with the memorial, as the agent of the memorialists, sailed for London. While the document ostensibly set forth their wish for a definition of "the tenure of the lands," really the burden of the prayer was for "Negroes." He presented the memorial to the king, and his Majesty referred it to a committee of the "Lords of Council for Plantation Affairs." This committee transferred a copy of the memorial to the trustees, with a request for their answer. About this time Stephens presented a petition to Parliament, in which he charged the trustees with direliction of duty, improper use of the public funds, abuse of their authority, and numerous other sins against the public welfare. It created a genuine sensation. The House resolved to go into a "committee of the whole," to consider the petitions and the answer of the trustees. The answer of the trustees was drawn by the able pen of the Earl of Egmont, and by them warmly approved on the 3d of May, and three days later was read to the House of Commons. A motion prevailed "that the petitions do lie upon the table," for the perusal of the members, for the space of one week. At the expiration of the time fixed, Stephens appeared, and all the petitions of the people of Georgia to the trustees in reference to "the tenure of lands," and for "the use of negroes," were laid before the honorable body. In the committee of the whole the affairs of the colony were thoroughly investigated; and, after a few days session, Mr. Carew reported a set of resolutions, being the sense of the committee after due deliberation upon the matters before them:—

"That the province of Georgia, in America, by reason of its situation, may be an useful barrier to the British provinces on the continent of America against the French and Spaniards, and Indian nations in their interests; that the ports and harbors within the said province may be a good security to the trade and navigation of this kingdom, that the said province, by reason of the fertility of the soil, the healthfulness of the climate, and the convenience of the rivers, is a proper place for establishing a settlement, and may contribute greatly to the increasing trade of this kingdom; that it is very necessary and advantageous to this nation that the colony of Georgia should be preserved and supported; that it will be an advantage to the colony of Georgia to permit the importation of rum into the said colony from any of the British colonies; that the petition of Thomas Stephens contains false, scandalous and malicious charges, tending to asperse the characters of the Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia, in America."

When the resolution making the importation of rum lawful reached a vote, it was amended by adding, "As also the use of negroes, who may be employed there with advantage to the colony, under proper regulations and restrictions." It was lost by a majority of nine votes. A resolution prevailed calling Thomas Stephens to the bar of the House, "to be reprimanded on his knees by Mr. Speaker," for his offence against the trustees.

On the next day Stephens, upon his bended knees at the bar of the House of Commons, before the assembled statesmen of Great Britain, was publicly reprimanded by the speaker, and discharged after paying his fees. Thus ended the attempt of the people of the colony of Georgia to secure permission, over the heads of the trustees, to introduce slaves into their service.

The dark tide of slavery influence was dashing against the borders of the colony. The people were discouraged. Business was stagnated. Internal dissatisfaction and factional strife wore hard upon the spirit of a people trying to build up and develop a new country. Then the predatory incursions of the Spaniards, and the threatening attitude of the Indians, unnerved the entire Province. In this state of affairs white servants grew insolent and insubordinate. Those whose term of service expired refused to work. In this dilemma many persons boldly put the rule of the trustees under foot, and hired Negroes from the Carolinas. At length the trustees became aware of the clandestine importation of Negroes into the colony, and thereupon gave the magistrates a severe reproval. On the 2d of October, 1747, they received the following reply:—

"We are afraid, sir, from what you have wrote in relation to negroes, that he Honourable Trustees have been misinformed as to our conduct relating thereto; for we can with great assurance assert, that this Board has always acted an uniform part in discouraging the use of negroes in this colony, well knowing it to be disagreeable to the Trustees, as well as contrary to an act existing for the prohibition of them, and always give it in charge to those whom we had put in possession of lands, not to attempt the introduction or use of negroes. But notwithstanding our great caution, some people from Carolina, soon after settling lands on the Little Ogeechee, found means of bringing and employing a few negroes on the said lands, some time before it was discovered to us, upon which they thought it high time to withdraw them, for fear of being seized, and soon after withdrew themselves and families out of the colony, which appeals to us at present to be the resolution of divers others."[518]

It was charged that the law-officers knew of the presence of Negroes in Georgia; that their standing and constant toast was, "the one thing needful" (Negroes); and that they themselves had surreptitiously aided in the procurement of Negroes for the colony. The supporters of the colonists grew less powerful as the struggle went forward. The most active grew taciturn and conservative. The advocates of Negro labor became bolder, and more acrimonious in debate; and at length the champions of exclusive white labor shrank into silence, appalled at the desperation of then opponents. The Rev. Martin Bolzius, one of the most active supporters of the trustees, wrote those gentlemen on May 3, 1748:—

"Things being now in such a melancholy state, I must humbly beseech your honors, not to regard any more our of our friend's petitions against negroes."

The Rev. George Whitefield and James Habersham used their utmost influence upon the trustees to obtain a modification of the prohibition against "the use of negroes." On the 6th of December, 1748, Rev. Whitefield, speaking of a plantation and Negroes he had purchased, wrote the trustees:—

"Upwards of five thousand pounds have been expended in that undertaking, and yet very little proficiency made in the cultivation of my tract of land, and that entirely owing to the necessity I lay under of making use of white hands. Had a negro been allowed, I should now have had a sufficiency to support a great many orphans, without expending above half the sum which has been laid out. An unwillingness to let so good a design drop, and having a rational conviction that it must necessarily, if some other method was not fixed upon to prevent it—these two considerations, honoured gentlemen, prevailed on me about two years ago, through the bounty of my good friends, to purchase a plantation in South Carolina, where negroes are allowed. Blessed be God, this plantation has succeeded; and though at present I have only eight working hands, yet in all probability there will be more raised in one year, and with a quarter the expense, than has been produced at Bethesda for several years last past. This confirms me in the opinion I have entertained for a long time, that Georgia never can or will be a flourishing province without negroes are allowed."[519]

The sentiment in favor of the importation of Negro slaves had become well-nigh unanimous. The trustees began to waver. On the 10th of January, 1749, another petition was presented to the trustees. It was carefully drawn, and set forth the restrictions under which slaves should be introduced. On the 16th of May following, it was read to the trustees; and they resolved to have it "presented to His Majesty in council." They also asked that the prohibition against the introduction of Negroes, passed in "1735, be repealed." The Earl of Shaftesbury, at the head of a special committee, draughted a bill repealing the prohibition. On the 26th of October, 1749, a large and influential committee of twenty-seven drew up and signed a petition urging the immediate introduction of slavery, with certain limitations. The paper was duly attested, and returned to the trustees. The opposition to the introduction of slavery into the colony of Georgia had been conquered; and, after a long and bitter struggle, slavery was firmly and legally established in this the last Province of the English in the Western world. The colonists were jubilant.

The charter under which the trustees acted expired by limitation in 1752, and a new form of government was established under the Board of Trade. The royal commission appointed a governor and council. One of the first ordinances enacted by them was one whereby "all offences committed by slaves were to be tried by a single justice, without a jury, who was to award execution, and, in capital cases, to set a value on the slave, to be paid out of the public treasury." At the first session of the Assembly in 1755, a law was passed "for the regulation and government of slaves." In 1765 an Act was passed establishing a pass system, and the rest of the legislation in respect to slaves was a copy of the laws of South Carolina.

The history of slavery in Georgia during this period is unparalleled and incomparably interesting. It illustrates the power of the institution, and shows that there was no Province sufficiently independent of its influence so as to expel it from its jurisdiction. Like the Angel of Death that passed through Egypt, there was no colony that it did not smite with its dark and destroying pinions. The dearest, the sublimest, interests of humanity were prostrated by its defiling touch. It shut out the sunlight of human kindness; it paled the fires of hope; it arrested the development of the branches of men's better natures, and peopled their lower being with base and consuming desires; it placed the "Golden Rule" under the unholy heel of time-servers and self-seekers; it made the Church as secular as the Change, and the latter as pious as the former: it was a gigantic system, at war with the civilization of the Roundheads and Puritans, and an intolerable burden to a people who desired to build a new nation in this New World in the West.

FOOTNOTES:

[514] Stephens's Journal, vol. iii. p. 281.

[515] Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. p. 310, note.

[516] Stevens's Hist. of Georgia, vol. i. p. 289.

[517] Bancroft, vol. iii. 12th ed. p. 427.

[518] Stevens's Hist. of Georgia, vol. i. p. 307.

[519] Whitefield's Works, vol. ii. pp. 90, 105, 208.



Part III.

THE NEGRO DURING THE REVOLUTION.



CHAPTER XXVI.

MILITARY EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES.

1775-1780.

"Many black soldiers were in the service during all stages of the war."—SPARKS.

THE COLONIAL STATES IN 1715.—RATIFICATION OF THE NON-IMPORTATION ACT BY THE SOUTHERN COLONIES.—GEORGE WASHINGTON PRESENTS RESOLUTIONS AGAINST SLAVERY, IN A MEETING AT FAIRFAX COURT-HOUSE, VA.—LETTER WRITTEN BY BENJAMIN FRANKLIN TO DEAN WOODWARD, PERTAINING TO SLAVERY.—LETTER TO THE FREEMEN OF VIRGINIA FROM A COMMITTEE, CONCERNING THE SLAVES BROUGHT FROM JAMAICA.—SEVERE TREATMENT OF SLAVES IN THE COLONIES MODIFIED.—ADVERTISEMENT IN "THE BOSTON GAZETTE" OF THE RUNAWAY SLAVE CRISPUS ATTUCKS.—THE BOSTON MASSACRE.—ITS RESULTS.—CRISPUS ATTUCKS SHOWS HIS LOYALTY.—HIS SPIRITED LETTER TO THE TORY GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE.—SLAVES ADMITTED INTO THE ARMY.—THE CONDITION OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY.—SPIRITED DEBATE IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, OVER THE DRAUGHT OF A LETTER TO GEN. WASHINGTON.—INSTRUCTIONS TO DISCHARGE ALL SLAVES AND FREE NEGROES IN HIS ARMY.—MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT CAMBRIDGE.—LORD DUNMORE'S PROCLAMATION.—PREJUDICE THE SOUTHERN COLONIES.—NEGROES IN VIRGINIA FLOCK TO THE BRITISH ARMY.—CAUTION TO THE NEGROES PRINTED IN A WILLIAMSBURG PAPER.—THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION ANSWERS THE PROCLAMATION OF LORD DUNMORE.—GEN. GREENE, IN A LETTER TO GEN. WASHINGTON, CALLS ATTENTION TO THE RAISING OF A NEGRO REGIMENT ON STATEN ISLAND.—LETTER FROM A HESSIAN OFFICER.—CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS.—GEN. VARNUM'S LETTER TO GEN. WASHINGTON, SUGGESTING THE EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES, SENT TO GOV. COOKE.—THE GOVERNOR REFERS VARNUM'S LETTER TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.—MINORITY PROTEST AGAINST ENLISTING SLAVES TO SERVE IN THE ARMY.—MASSACHUSETTS TRIES TO SECURE LEGAL ENLISTMENTS OF NEGRO TROOPS.—LETTER OF THOMAS KENCH TO THE COUNCIL AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BOSTON, MASS.—NEGROES SERVE IN WHITE ORGANIZATIONS UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.—NEGRO SOLDIERS SERVE IN VIRGINIA.—MARYLAND EMPLOY NEGROES.—NEW YORK PASSES AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE RAISING OF TWO COLORED REGIMENTS.—WAR IN THE MIDDLE AND SOUTHERN COLONIES.—HAMILTON'S LETTER TO JOHN JAY.—COL. LAURENS'S EFFORTS TO RAISE NEGRO TROOPS IN SOUTH CAROLINA.—PROCLAMATION OF SIR HENRY CLINTON INDUCING NEGROES TO DESERT THE REBEL ARMY.—LORD CORNWALLIS ISSUES A PROCLAMATION OFFERING PROTECTION TO ALL NEGROES SEEKING HIS COMMAND.—COL. LAURENS IS CALLED TO FRANCE ON IMPORTANT BUSINESS.—HIS PLAN FOR SECURING BLACK LEVIES FOR THE SOUTH UPON HIS RETURN.—HIS LETTERS TO GEN. WASHINGTON IN REGARD TO HIS FRUITLESS PLANS.—CAPT. DAVID HUMPHREYS RECRUITS A COMPANY OF COLORED INFANTRY IN CONNECTICUT.—RETURN OF NEGROES IN THE ARMY IN 1778.

The policy of arming the Negroes early claimed the anxious consideration of the leaders of the colonial army during the American Revolution. England had been crowding her American plantations with slaves at a fearful rate; and, when hostilities actually began, it was difficult to tell whether the American army or the ministerial army would be able to secure the Negroes as allies. In 1715 the royal governors of the colonies gave the Board of Trade the number of the Negroes in their respective colonies. The slave population was as follows:—

NEGROES. NEGROES. New Hampshire 150 Maryland 9,500 Massachusetts 2,000 Virginia 23,000 Rhode Island 500 North Carolina 3,700 Connecticut 1,500 South Carolina 10,500 New York 4,000 New Jersey 1,500 Total 58,850 Pennsylvania and Delaware 2,500

Sixty years afterwards, when the Revolution had begun, the slave population of the thirteen colonies was as follows:—

NEGROES. NEGROES. Massachusetts 3,500 Maryland 80,000 Rhode Island 4,373 Virginia 165,000 Connecticut 5,000 North Carolina 75,000 New Hampshire 629 South Carolina 110,000 New York 15,000 Georgia 16,000 New Jersey 7,600 - Pennsylvania 10,000 Total 501,102 Delaware 9,000

Such a host of beings was not to be despised in a great military struggle. Regarded as a neutral element that could be used simply to feed an army, to perform fatigue duty, and build fortifications, the Negro population was the object of fawning favors of the white colonists. In the NON-IMPORTATION COVENANT, passed by the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, on the 24th of October, 1774, the second resolve indicated the feeling of the representatives of the people on the question of the slave-trade:—

"2. We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave-trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it."[520]

It, with the entire covenant, received the signatures of all the delegates from the twelve colonies.[521] The delegates from the Southern colonies were greatly distressed concerning the probable attitude of the slave element. They knew that if that ignorant mass of humanity were inflamed by some act of strategy of the enemy, they might sweep their homes and families from the face of the earth. The cruelties of the slave-code, the harsh treatment of Negro slaves, the lack of confidence in the whites everywhere manifested among the blacks,—as so many horrid dreams, harassed the minds of slaveholders by day and by night. They did not even possess the courage to ask the slaves to remain silent and passive during the struggle between England and themselves. The sentiment that adorned the speeches of orators, and graced the writings of the colonists, during this period, was "the equality of the rights of all men." And yet the slaves who bore their chains under their eyes, who were denied the commonest rights of humanity, who were rated as chattels and real property, were living witnesses to the insincerity and inconsistency of this declaration. But it is a remarkable fact, that all the Southern colonies, in addition to the action of their delegates, ratified the Non-Importation Covenant. The Maryland Convention on the 8th of December, 1774; South Carolina Provincial Congress on the 11th January, 1775; Virginia Convention on the 22d March, 1775; North Carolina Provincial Congress on the 23d of August, 1775; Delaware Assembly on the 25th of March, 1775 (refused by Gov. John Penn); and Georgia,—passed the following resolves thereabouts:—

"1. Resolved, That this Congress will adopt, and carry into execution, all and singular the measures and recommendations of the late Continental Congress.

"4. Resolved, That we will neither import or [nor] purchase any slave imported from Africa or elsewhere after this date."

Meetings were numerous and spirited throughout the colonies, in which, by resolutions, the people expressed their sentiments in reference to the mother country. On the 18th of July, 1774, at a meeting held in Fairfax Court-House, Virginia, a series of twenty-four resolutions was presented by George Washington, chairman of the committee on resolutions, three of which were directed against slavery.

"17 Resolved. That it is the opinion of this meeting, that, during our present difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported into any of the British colonies on this continent; and we take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an entire stop for ever put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade....

"21. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this meeting, that this and the other associating colonies should break off all trade, intercourse, and dealings with that colony, province, or town, which shall decline, or refuse to agree to, the plan which shall be adopted by the General Congress....

"24. Resolved, That George Washington and Charles Broadwater, lately elected our representatives to serve in the General Assembly, be appointed to attend the Convention at Williamsburg on the first day of August next, and present these resolves, as the sense of the people of this county upon the measures proper to be taken in the present alarming and dangerous situation of America."

Mr. Sparks comments upon the resolutions as follows:—

"The draught, from which the resolves are printed, I find among Washington's papers, in the handwriting of George Mason, by whom they were probably drawn up; yet, as they were adopted by the Committee of which Washington was chairman, and reported by him as moderator of the meeting, they may be presumed to express his opinions, formed on a perfect knowledge of the subject, and after cool deliberation. This may indeed be inferred from his letter to Mr. Bryan Fairfax, in which he intimates a doubt only as to the article favoring the idea of a further petition to the king. He was opposed to such a step, believing enough had been done in this way already; but he yielded the point in tenderness to the more wavering resolution of his associates.

"These resolves are framed with much care and ability, and exhibit the question then at issue, and the state of public feeling, in a manner so clear and forcible as to give them a special claim to a place in the present work, in addition to the circumstance of their being the matured views of Washington at the outset of the great Revolutionary struggle in which he was to act so conspicuous a part....

"Such were the opinions of Washington, and his associates in Virginia, at the beginning of the Revolutionary contest. The seventeenth resolve merits attention, from the pointed manner in which it condemns the slave trade."[522]

Dr. Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Dean Woodward, dated April 10, 1773, says,—

"I have since had the satisfaction to learn that a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of the Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty; and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the king for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that Colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed, and as the interest of a few merchants here has more weight with Government than that of thousands at a distance."[523]

Virginia gave early and positive proof that she was in earnest on the question of non-importation. One John Brown, a merchant of Norfolk, broke the rules of the colony by purchasing imported slaves, and was severely rebuked in the following article:—

"'TO THE FREEMEN OF VIRGINIA:

"'COMMITTEE CHAMBER, NORFOLK, March 6, 1775

"'Trusting to your sure resentment against the enemies of your country, we, the committee, elected by ballot for the Borough of Norfolk, hold up for your just indignation Mr. John Brown, merchant of this place.

"'On Thursday, the 2d of March, this committee were informed of the arrival of the brig Fanny, Capt. Watson, with a number of slaves for Mr. Brown: and, upon inquiry, it appeared they were shipped from Jamaica as his property, and on his account; that he had taken great pains to conceal their arrival from the knowledge of the committee; and that the shipper of the slaves, Mr. Brown's correspondent, and the captain of the vessel, were all fully apprised of the Continental prohibition against that article.

"'From the whole of this transaction, therefore, we, the committee for Norfolk Borough, do give it as our unanimous opinion, that the said John Brown, has wilfully and perversely violated the Continental Association to which he had with his own hand subscribed obedience, and that, agreeable to the eleventh article, we are bound forthwith to publish the truth of the case, to the end that all such foes to the rights of British America may be publicly known and universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty, and that every person may henceforth break off all dealings with him.'"

And the first delegation from Virginia to Congress in August, 1774, had instructions as follows, drawn by Thomas Jefferson:—

"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those Colonies, where it was, unhappily, introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his Majesty's negative; thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice."[524]

It is scarcely necessary to mention the fact, that there were several very cogent passages in the first draught of the Declaration of Independence that were finally omitted. The one most pertinent to this history is here given:—

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him; captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of Infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And, that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.[525]

The solicitude concerning the slavery question was not so great in the Northern colonies. The slaves were not so numerous as in the Carolinas and other Southern colonies. The severe treatment of slaves had been greatly modified, the spirit of masters toward them more gentle and conciliatory, and the public sentiment concerning them more humane. Public discussion of the Negro question, however, was cautiously avoided. The failure of attempted legislation friendly to the slaves had discouraged their friends, while the critical situation of public affairs made the supporters of slavery less aggressive. On the 25th of October, 1774, an effort was made in the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts to re-open the discussion, but it failed. The record of the attempt is as follows:—

"Mr. Wheeler brought into Congress a letter directed to Doct. Appleton, purporting the propriety, that while we are attempting to free ourselves from our present embarrassments, and preserve ourselves from slavery, that we also take into consideration the state and circumstances of the negro slaves in this province. The same was read, and it was moved that a committee be appointed to take the same into consideration. After some debate thereon, the question was put, whether the matter now subside, and it passed in the affirmative."[526]

Thus ended the attempt to call the attention of the people's representatives to the inconsistency of their doctrine and practice on the question of the equality of human rights. Further agitation of the question, followed by the defeat of just measures in the interest of the slaves, was deemed by many as dangerous to the colony. The discussions were watched by the Negroes with a lively interest; and failure led them to regard the colonists as their enemies, and greatly embittered them. Then it was difficult to determine just what would be wisest to do for the enslaved in this colony. The situation was critical: a bold, clear-headed, loyal-hearted man was needed.

On Tuesday, Oct. 2, 1750, "The Boston Gazette, or Weekly Journal," contained the following advertisement:—

"Ran-away from his master William Brown of Framingham, on the 30th of Sept. last, a Molatto Fellow, about 27 Years of Age, named Crispas, 5 Feet 2 Inches high, short curl'd Hair, his Knees nearer together than common; had on a light colour'd Bear-skin Coat, plain brown Fustian Jacket, or brown all-Wool one, new Buckskin Breeches, blue Yarn Stockings, and a checked woolen Shirt.

"Whoever shall take up said Run-away, and convey him to his abovesaid Master, shall have ten Pounds, old Tenor Reward, and all necessary Charges paid. And all Masters of Vessels and others, are hereby cautioned against concealing or carrying off said Servant on Penalty of the Law. Boston, October 2, 1750."

During the month of November,—the 13th and 20th,—a similar advertisement appeared in the same paper; showing that the "Molatto Fellow" had not returned to his master.

Twenty years later "Crispas's" name once more appeared in the journals of Boston. This time he was not advertised as a runaway slave, nor was there reward offered for his apprehension. His soul and body were beyond the cruel touch of master; the press had paused to announce his apotheosis, and to write the name of the Negro patriot, soldier, and martyr to the ripening cause of the American Revolution, in fadeless letters of gold,—CRISPUS ATTUCKS!

On March 5, 1770, occurred the Boston Massacre; and, while it was not the real commencement of the Revolutionary struggle, it was the bloody drama that opened the most eventful and thrilling chapter in American history. The colonists had endured, with obsequious humility, the oppressive acts of Britain, the swaggering insolence of the ministerial troops, and the sneers of her hired minions. The aggressive and daring men had found themselves hampered by the conservative views of a large class of colonists, who feared lest some one should take a step not exactly according to the law. But while the "wise and prudent" were deliberating upon a legal method of action, there were those, who, "made of sterner stuff," reasoned right to the conclusion, that they had rights as colonists that ought to be respected. That there was cause for just indignation on the part of the people towards the British soldiers, there is no doubt. But there is reason to question the time and manner of the assault made by the citizens. Doubtless they had "a zeal, but not according to knowledge." There is no record to controvert the fact of the leadership of Crispus Attucks. A manly-looking fellow, six feet two inches in height, he was a commanding figure among the irate colonists. His enthusiasm for the threatened interests of the Province, his loyalty to the teachings of Otis, and his willingness to sacrifice for the cause of equal rights, endowed him with a courage, which, if tempered with better judgment, would have made him a military hero in his day. But consumed by the sacred fires of patriotism, that lighted his path to glory, his career of usefulness ended at the beginning. John Adams, as the counsel for the soldiers, thought that the patriots Crispus Attucks led were a "rabble of saucy boys, negroes, mulattoes, &c.," who could not restrain their emotion. Attucks led the charge with the shout, "The way to get rid of these soldiers is to attack the main-guard; strike at the root: this is the nest." A shower of missiles was answered by the discharge of the guns of Capt. Preston's company. The exposed and commanding person of the intrepid Attucks went down before the murderous fire. Samuel Gray and Jonas Caldwell were also killed, while Patrick Carr and Samuel Maverick were mortally wounded.

The scene that followed beggared description. The people ran from their homes and places of business into the streets, white with rage. The bells rang out the alarm of danger. The bodies of Attucks and Caldwell were carried into Faneuil Hall, where their strange faces were viewed by the largest gathering of people ever before witnessed. Maverick was buried from his mother's house in Union Street, and Gray from his brother's residence in Royal Exchange Lane. But Attucks and Caldwell, strangers in the city, without relatives, were buried from Faneuil Hall, so justly called "the Cradle of Liberty." The four hearses formed a junction in King Street; and from thence the procession moved in columns six deep, with a long line of coaches containing the first citizens of Boston. The obsequies were witnessed by a very large and respectful concourse of people. The bodies were deposited in one grave, over which a stone was placed bearing this inscription:—

"Long as in Freedom's cause the wise contend, Dear to your country shall your fame extend; While to the world the lettered stone shall tell Where Caldwell, Attucks, Gray and Maverick fell."

Who was Crispus Attucks? A Negro whose soul, galling under the destroying influence of slavery, went forth a freeman, went forth not only to fight for his liberty, but to give his life as an offering upon the altar of American liberty. He was not a madcap, as some would have the world believe. He was not ignorant of the issues between the American colonies and the English government, between the freemen of the colony and the dictatorial governors. Where he was during the twenty years from 1750 to 1770, is not known; but doubtless in Boston, where he had heard the fiery eloquence of Otis, the convincing arguments of Sewall, and the tender pleadings of Belknap. He had learned to spell out the fundamental principles that should govern well-regulated communities and states; and, having come to the rapturous consciousness of his freedom in fee simple, the brightest crown God places upon mortal man, he felt himself neighbor and friend. His patriotism was not a mere spasm produced by sudden and exciting circumstances. It was an education; and knowledge comes from experience; and the experience of this black hero was not of a single day. Some time before the memorable 5th of March, Crispus addressed the following spirited letter to the Tory governor of the Province:—

"TO THOMAS HUTCHINSON: Sir,—You will hear from us with astonishment. You ought to hear from us with horror. You are chargeable before God and man, with our blood. The soldiers were but passive instruments, mere machines; neither moral nor voluntary agents in our destruction, more than the leaden pellets with which we were wounded. You was a free agent. You acted, coolly, deliberately, with all that premeditated malice, not against us in particular, but against the people in general, which, in the sight of the law, is an ingredient in the composition of murder. You will hear further from us hereafter. Crispus Attucks."[527]

This was the declaration of war. It was fulfilled. The world has heard from him; and, more, the English-speaking world will never forget the noble daring and excusable rashness of Attucks in the holy cause of liberty! Eighteen centuries before he was saluted by death and kissed by immortality, another Negro bore the cross of Christ to Calvary for him. And when the colonists were staggering wearily under their cross of woe, a Negro came to the front, and bore that cross to the victory of glorious martyrdom!

And the people did not agree with John Adams that Attucks led "a motley rabble," but a band of patriots. Their evidence of the belief they entertained was to be found in the annual commemoration of the "5th of March," when orators, in measured sentences and impassioned eloquence, praised the hero-dead. In March, 1775, Dr. Joseph Warren, who a few months later, as Gen. Warren, made Bunker Hill the shrine of New-England patriotism, was the orator. On the question of human liberty, he said,—

"That personal freedom is the natural right of every man, and that property, or an exclusive right to dispose of what he has honestly acquired by his own labor, necessarily arises therefrom, are truths which common sense has placed beyond the reach of contradiction. And no man, or body of men, can, without being guilty of flagrant injustice, claim a right to dispose of the persons or acquisitions of any other man, or body of men, unless it can be proved that such a right has arisen from some compact between the parties, in which it has been explicitly and freely granted."

These noble sentiments were sealed by his blood at Bunker Hill, on the 17th of June, 1775, and are the amulet that will protect his fame from the corroding touch of centuries of time

The free Negroes of the Northern colonies responded to the call "to arms" that rang from the placid waters of Massachusetts Bay to the verdant hills of Berkshire, and from Lake Champlain to the upper waters of the Hudson. Every Northern colony had its Negro troops, not as separate organizations,—save the black regiment of Rhode Island,—but scattered throughout all of the white organizations of the army. At the first none but free Negroes were received into the army; but before peace came Negroes were not only admitted, they were purchased, and sent into the war, with an offer of freedom and fifty dollars bounty at the close of their service. On the 29th of May, 1775, the "Committee of Safety" for the Province of Massachusetts passed the following resolve against the enlistment of Negro slaves as soldiers:—

"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, as the contest now between Great Britain and the colonies respects the liberties and privileges of the latter, which the colonies are determined to maintain, that the admission of any persons, as soldiers, into the army now raising, but only such as are freemen, will be inconsistent with the principles that are to be supported, and reflect dishonor on this colony, and that no slaves be admitted into this army upon any consideration whatever."[528]

On Tuesday, the 6th of June, 1775, "A resolve of the committee of safety, relative to the [admission] of slaves into the army was read, and ordered to lie on the table for further consideration."[529] But this was but another evidence of the cold, conservative spirit of Massachusetts on the question of other people's rights.

The Continental army was in bad shape. Its arms and clothing, its discipline and efficiency, were at such a low state as to create the gravest apprehensions and deepest solicitude. Gen. George Washington took command of the army in and around Boston, on the 3d of July, 1775, and threw his energies into the work of organization. On the 10th of July he issued instructions to the recruiting-officers of Massachusetts Bay, in which he forbade the enlistment of any "negro," or "any Person who is not an American born, unless such Person has a Wife and Family and is a settled resident in this Country."[530] But, nevertheless, it is a curious fact, as Mr. Bancroft says, "the roll of the army at Cambridge had from its first formation borne the names of men of color." "Free negroes stood in the ranks by the side of white men. In the beginning of the war they had entered the provincial army; the first general order which was issued by Ward, had required a return, among other things, of the 'complexion' of the soldiers; and black men like others were retained in the service after the troops were adopted by the continent." There is no room to doubt. Negroes were in the army from first to last, but were there in contravention of law and positive prohibition.[531]

On the 29th of September, 1775, a spirited debate occurred in the Continental Congress, over the draught of a letter to Gen. Washington, reported by Lynch, Lee, and Adams. Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina moved that the commander-in-chief be instructed to discharge all slaves and free Negroes in his army. The Southern delegates supported him earnestly, but his motion was defeated. Public attention was called to the question, and at length the officers of the army debated it. The following minute of a meeting held at Cambridge preserves and reveals the sentiment of the general officers of the army on the subject:—

"At a council of war, held at head-quarters, October 8th, 1775, present: His Excellency, General Washington; Major-Generals Ward, Lee, and Putnam Brigadier-Generals Thomas, Spencer, Heath, Sullivan, Greene, and Gates—the question was proposed:

"'Whether it will be advisable to enlist any negroes in the new army? or whether there be a distinction between such as are slaves and those who are free?'

"It was agreed unanimously to reject all slaves; and, by a great majority, to reject negroes altogether."

Ten days later, Oct. 18, 1775, a committee of conference met at Cambridge, consisting of Dr. Franklin, Benjamin Harrison, and Thomas Lynch, who conferred with Gen. Washington, the deputy-governors of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and the Committee of the Council of Massachusetts Bay. The object of the conference was the renovation and improvement of the army. On the 23d of October, the employment of Negroes as soldiers came before the conference for action, as follows:—

"Ought not negroes to be excluded from the new enlistment, especially such as are slaves? all were thought improper by the council of officers."

"Agreed that they be rejected altogether"

In his General Orders, issued from headquarters on the 12th of November, 1775, Washington said,—

"Neither negroes, boys unable to bear arms, nor old men unfit to endure the fatigues of the campaign, are to be enlisted."[532]

But the general repaired this mistake the following month. Lord Dunmore had issued a proclamation declaring "all indented servants, negroes, or others (appertaining to rebels) free." Fearing lest many Negroes should join the ministerial army, in General Orders, 30th December, Washington wrote:—

"As the General is informed that numbers of free negroes are desirous of enlisting he gives leave to the recruiting officers to entertain them, and promises to lay the matter before the Congress, who, he doubts not, will approve of it."

Lord Dunmore's proclamation is here given:—

"By his Excellency the Right Honorable JOHN, Earl of DUNMORE, his Majesty's Lieutenant and Governor-General of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, and Vice-Admiral of the same,—

"A PROCLAMATION.

"As I have ever entertained hopes that an accommodation might have taken place between Great Britain and this Colony, without being compelled by my duty to this most disagreeable but now absolutely necessary step, rendered so by a body of armed men, unlawfully assembled, firing on his Majesty's tenders; and the formation of an army, and that army now on their march to attack his Majesty's troops, and destroy the well-disposed subject of this Colony: To defeat such treasonable purposes, and that all such traitors and their abettors may be brought to justice, and that the peace and good order of this Colony may be again restored, which the ordinary course of the civil law is unable to effect, I have thought fit to issue this my Proclamation; hereby declaring, that until the aforesaid good purposes can be obtained, I do, in virtue of the power and authority to me given by his Majesty, determine to execute martial law, and cause the same to be executed, throughout this Colony. And, to the end that peace and good order may the sooner be restored, I do require every person capable of bearing arms to resort to his Majesty's standard, or be looked upon as traitors to his Majesty's Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the penalty the law inflicts upon such offences,—such as forfeiture of life, confiscation of lands, &c., &c. And I do hereby further declare all indented servants, negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels,) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining his Majesty's troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper sense of their duty to his Majesty's crown and dignity. I do further order and require all his Majesty's liege subjects to retain their quit-rents, or any other taxes due, or that may become due, in their own custody, till such time as peace may be again restored to this at present most unhappy country, or demanded of them, for their former salutary purposes, by officers properly authorized to receive the same.

"Given under my hand, on board the Ship William, off Norfolk, the seventh day of November, in the sixteenth year of his Majesty's reign.

"DUNMORE.

"God save the King!"[533]

On account of this, on the 31st of December, Gen. Washington wrote the President of Congress as follows:—

"It has been represented to me, that the free negroes, who have served in this army, are very much dissatisfied at being discarded. As it is to be apprehended, that they may seek employ in the ministerial army, I have presumed to depart from the resolution respecting them, and have given license for their being enlisted. If this is disapproved of by Congress, I will put a stop to it."[534]

This letter was referred to a committee consisting of Messrs. Wythe, Adams, and Wilson. On the 16th of January, 1776, they made the following report:—

"That the free negroes who have served faithfully in the army at Cambridge may be re-enlist—therein, but no others."[535]

This action on the part of Congress had reference to the army around Boston, but it called forth loud and bitter criticism from the officers of the army at the South. In a letter to John Adams, dated Oct. 24, 1775, Gen. Thomas indicated that there was some feeling even before the action of Congress was secured. He says,—

"I am sorry to hear that any prejudices should take place in any Southern colony, with respect to the troops raised in this. I am certain the insinuations you mention are injurious, if we consider with what precipitation we were obliged to collect an army. In the regiments at Roxbury, the privates are equal to any that I served with in the last war; very few old men, and in the ranks very few boys. Our fifers are many of them boys. We have some negroes; but I look on them, in general, equally serviceable with other men for fatigue; and, in action, many of them have proved themselves brave.

"I would avoid all reflection, or any thing that may tend to give umbrage; but there is in this army from the southward a number called riflemen, who are as indifferent men as I ever served with. These privates are mutinous, and often deserting to the enemy; unwilling for duty of any kind; exceedingly vicious; and, I think, the army here would be as well without as with them. But to do justice to their officers, they are, some of them, likely men."

The Dunmore proclamation was working great mischief in the Southern colonies. The Southern colonists were largely engaged in planting, and, as they were Tories, did not rush to arms with the celerity that characterized the Northern colonists. At an early moment in the struggle, the famous Rev. Dr. Hopkins of Rhode Island wrote the following pertinent extract:—

"God is so ordering it in his providence, that it seems absolutely necessary something should speedily be done with respect to the slaves among us, in order to our safety, and to prevent their turning against us in out present struggle, in order to get their liberty. Our oppressors have planned to gain the blacks, and induce them to take up arms against us, by promising them liberty on this condition; and this plan they are prosecuting to the utmost of their power, by which means they have persuaded numbers to join them. And should we attempt to restrain them by force and severity, keeping a strict guard over them, and punishing them severely who shall be detected in attempting to join our opposers, this will only be making bad worse, and serve to render our inconsistence, oppression, and cruelty more criminal, perspicuous, and shocking, and bring down the righteous vengeance of Heaven on our heads. The only way pointed out to prevent this threatening evil is to set the blacks at liberty ourselves by some public acts and laws, and then give them proper encouragement to labor, or take arms in the defence of the American cause, as they shall choose. This would at once be doing them some degree of justice, and defeating our enemies in the scheme that they are prosecuting."[536]

On Sunday, the 24th of September, 1775, John Adams recorded the following conversation, that goes to show that Lord Dunmore's policy was well matured:—

"In the evening, Mr. Bullock and Mr. Houston, two gentlemen from Georgia, came into our room, and smoked and chatted the whole evening. Houston and Adams disputed the whole time in good humor. They are both dabs at disputation, I think. Houston, a lawyer by trade, is one of course, and Adams is not a whit less addicted to it than the lawyers. The question was, whether all America was not in a state of war, and whether we ought to confine ourselves to act upon the defensive only? He was for acting offensively, next spring or this fall, if the petition was rejected or neglected. If it was not answered, and favorably answered, he would be for acting against Britain and Britons, as, in open war, against French and Frenchmen; fit privateers, and take their ships anywhere. These gentlemen give a melancholy account of the State of Georgia and South Carolina. They say that if one thousand regular troops should land in Georgia, and their commander be provided with arms and clothes enough, and proclaim freedom to all the negroes who would join his camp, twenty thousand negroes would join it from the two Provinces in a fortnight. The negroes have a wonderful art of communicating intelligence among themselves; it will run several hundreds of miles in a week or fortnight. They say, their only security is this; that all the king's friends, and tools of government, have large plantations, and property in negroes; so that the slaves of the Tories would be lost, as well as those of the Whigs."[537]

The Negroes in Virginia sought the standards of the ministerial army, and the greatest consternation prevailed among the planters. On the 27th of November, 1775, Edmund Pendleton wrote to Richard Lee that the slaves were daily flocking to the British army.

"The Governour, hearing of this, marched out with three hundred and fifty soldiers, Tories and slaves, to Kemp's Landing, and after setting up his standard, and issuing his proclamation, declaring all persons Rebels who took up arms for the country, and inviting all slaves, servants, and apprentices to come to him and receive arms, he proceeded to intercept Hutchings and his party, upon whom he came by surprise, but received, it seems, so warm a fire, that the ragamuffins gave way. They were, however, rallied on discovering that two companies of our militia gave way; and left Hutchings and Dr. Reid with a volunteer company, who maintained their ground bravely till they were overcome by numbers, and took shelter in a swamp. The slaves were sent in pursuit of them; and one of Col. Hutchings's own, with another, found him. On their approach, he discharged his pistol at his slave, but missed him; and was taken by them, after receiving a wound in his face with a sword. The number taken or killed, on either side, is not ascertained. It is said the Governour went to Dr. Reid's shop, and, after taking the medicines and dressings necessary for his wounded men, broke all the others to pieces. Letters mention that slaves flock to him in abundance; but I hope it is magnified."[538]

But the dark stream of Negroes that had set in toward the English troops, where they were promised the privilege of bearing arms and their freedom, could not easily be stayed. The proclamation of Dunmore received the criticism of the press, and the Negroes were appealed to and urged to stand by their "true friends." A Williamsburg paper, printed on the 23d of November, 1775, contained the following well-written plea:—

"CAUTION TO THE NEGROES.

"The second class of people for whose sake a few remarks upon this proclamation seem necessary is the Negroes. They have been flattered with their freedom, if they be able to bear arms, and will speedily join Lord Dunmore's troops. To none, then, is freedom promised, but to such as are able to do Lord Dunmore service. The aged, the infirm, the women and children, are still to remain the property of their masters,—of masters who will be provoked to severity, should part of their slaves desert them. Lord Dunmore's declaration, therefore, is a cruel declaration to the Negroes. He does not pretend to make it out of any tenderness to them, but solely upon his own account; and, should it meet with success, it leaves by far the greater number at the mercy of an enraged and injured people. But should there be any amongst the Negroes weak enough to believe that Lord Dunmore intends to do them a kindness, and wicked enough to provoke the fury of the Americans against their defenceless fathers and mothers, their wives, their women and children, let them only consider the difficulty of effecting their escape, and what they must expect to suffer if they fall into the hands of the Americans. Let them further consider what must be their fate should the English prove conquerors. If we can judge of the future from the past, it will not be much mended. Long have the Americans, moved by compassion and actuated by sound policy, endeavored to stop the progress of slavery. Our Assemblies have repeatedly passed acts, laying heavy duties upon imported Negroes; by which they meant altogether to prevent the horrid traffick. But their humane intentions have been as often frustrated by the cruelty and covetousness of a set of English merchants, who prevailed upon the King to repeal our kind and merciful acts, little, indeed, to the credit of his humanity. Can it, then, be supposed that the Negroes will be better used by the English, who have always encouraged and upheld this slavery, than by their present masters, who pity their condition; who wish, in general, to make it as easy and comfortable as possible; and who would, were it in their power, or were they permitted, not only prevent any more Negroes from losing their freedom, but restore it to such as have already unhappily lost it? No: the ends of Lord Dunmore and his party being answered, they will either give up the offending Negroes to the rigor of the laws they have broken, or sell them in the West Indies, where every year they sell many thousands of their miserable brethren, to perish either by the inclemency of weather or the cruelty of barbarous masters. Be not then, ye Negroes, tempted by this proclamation to ruin yourselves. I have given you a faithful view of what you are to expect; and declare before God, in doing it, I have considered your welfare, as well as that of the country. Whether you will profit by my advice, I cannot tell; but this I know, that, whether we suffer or not, if you desert us, you most certainly will."[539]