Chapter XIV: The Colony of Massachusetts (1)

1633-1775.

THE EARLIEST MENTIONS OF NEGROES IN MASSACHUSETTS.--PEQUOD
INDIANS EXCHANGED FOR NEGROES.--VOYAGE OF THE SLAVE-SHIP
"DESIRE" IN 1638.--FUNDAMENTAL LAWS ADOPTED.--HEREDITARY
SLAVERY.--KIDNAPPING NEGROES.--GROWTH OF SLAVERY IN THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.--TAXATION OF SLAVES.--INTRODUCTION OF
INDIAN SLAVES PROHIBITED.--THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH
RESPECTING THE BAPTISM OF SLAVES.--SLAVE MARRIAGE.--CONDITION
OF FREE NEGROES.--PHILLIS WHEATLEY THE AFRICAN POETESS.--HER
LIFE.--SLAVERY RECOGNIZED IN ENGLAND IN ORDER TO BE
MAINTAINED IN THE COLONIES.--THE EMANCIPATION OF
SLAVES.--LEGISLATION FAVORING THE IMPORTATION OF WHITE
SERVANTS, BUT PROHIBITING THE CLANDESTINE BRINGING-IN OF
NEGROES.--JUDGE SEWALL'S ATTACK ON SLAVERY.--JUDGE SAFFIN'S
REPLY TO JUDGE SEWALL.

Had the men who gave the colony of Massachusetts its political being and Revolutionary fame known that the Negro--so early introduced into the colony as a slave--would have been in the future Republic for years the insoluble problem, and at last the subject of so great and grave economic and political concern, they would have committed to the jealous keeping of the chroniclers of their times the records for which the historian of the Negro seeks so vainly in this period. Stolen as he was from his tropical home; consigned to a servitude at war with man's intellectual and spiritual, as well as with his physical, nature; the very lowest of God's creation, in the estimation of the Roundheads of New England; a stranger in a strange land,--the poor Negro of Massachusetts found no place in the sympathy or history of the Puritan,--Christians whose deeds and memory have been embalmed in song and story, and given to an immortality equalled only by the indestructibility of the English language. The records of the most remote period of colonial history have preserved a silence on the question of Negro slavery as ominous as it is conspicuous. What data there are concerning the introduction of slavery are fragmentary, uncertain, and unsatisfactory, to say the least. There is but one work bearing the luminous stamp of historical trustworthiness, and which turns a flood of light on the dark records of the darker crime of human slavery in Massachusetts. And we are sure it is as complete as the ripe scholarship, patient research, and fair and fearless spirit of its author, could make it.[260]

The earliest mention of the presence of Negroes in Massachusetts is in connection with an account of some Indians who were frightened at a Colored man who had lost his way in the tangled path of the forest. The Indians, it seems, were "worse scared than hurt, who seeing a blackamore in the top of a tree looking out for his way which he had lost, surmised he was _Abamacho_, or the devil; deeming all devils that are blacker than themselves: and being near to the plantation, they posted to the English, and entreated their aid to conjure this devil to his own place, who finding him to be a poor wandering blackamore, conducted him to his master."[261] This was in 1633. It is circumstantial evidence of a twofold nature; i.e., it proves that there were Negroes in the colony at a date much earlier than can be fixed by reliable data, and that the Negroes were slaves. It is a fair presumption that this "wandering blackamore" who was conducted "to his _master_" was not the only Negro slave in the colony. Slaves generally come in large numbers, and consequently there must have been quite a number at this time.

Negro slavery in Massachusetts was the safety-valve to the pent-up vengeance of the Pequod Indians. Slavery would have been established in Massachusetts, even if there had been no Indians to punish by war, captivity, and duplicity. Encouraged by the British authorities, avarice and gain would have quieted the consciences of Puritan slave-holders. But the Pequod war was the early and urgent occasion for the founding of slavery under the foster care of a _free church and free government_! As the Pequod Indians would "not endure the yoke," would not remain "as servants,"[262] they were sent to Bermudas[263] and exchanged for Negroes,[264] with the hope that the latter would "endure the yoke" more patiently. The first importation of slaves from Barbados, secured in exchange for Indians, was made in 1637, the first year of the Pequod war, and was doubtless kept up for many years.

But in the following year we have the most positive evidence that New England had actually engaged in the slave-trade.

"Mr. Pierce, in the Salem ship, the Desire, returned from
the West Indies after seven months. He had been at
Providence, and brought some cotton, and tobacco, and
negroes, &c., from thence, and salt from Tertugos.... Dry
fish and strong liquors are the only commodities for those
parts. He met there two men-of-war, sent forth by the lords,
&c., of Providence with letters of mart, who had taken
divers prizes from the Spaniard and many negroes."[265]

"The Desire" was built at Marblehead in 1636;[266] was of one hundred and twenty tons, and perhaps one of the first built in the colony. There is no positive proof that "The Mayflower," after landing the holy Pilgrim Fathers, was fitted out for a slave-cruise! But there is no evidence to destroy the belief that "The Desire" was built for the slave-trade. Within a few years from the time of the building of "The Desire," there were quite a number of Negro slaves in Massachusetts. "John Josselyn, Gen't" in his "Two Voyages to New England," made in "1638, 1663," and printed for the first time in 1674,[267] gives an account of an attempt to breed slaves in Massachusetts.

"The Second of _October_, (1639) about 9 of the clock in the
morning, Mr. _Maverick's_ Negro woman came to my chamber
window, and in her own Countrey language and tune sang very
loud and shril, going out to her, she used a great deal of
respect towards me, and willingly would have expressed her
grief in _English_; but I apprehended it by her countenance
and deportment, whereupon I repaired to my host, to learn of
him the cause, and resolved to entreat him in her behalf,
for that I understood before, that she had been a Queen in
her own Countrey, and observed a very humble and dutiful
garb used towards her by another Negro who was her maid. Mr.
_Maverick_ was desirous to have a breed of Negroes, and
therefore seeing she would not yield by persuasions to
company with a Negro young man he had in his house; he
commanded him will'd she nill'd she to go to bed to her,
which was no sooner done but she kickt him out again, this
she took in high disdain beyond her slavery, and this was
the cause of her grief."[268]

It would appear, at first blush, that slavery was an individual speculation in the colony; but the voyage of the ship "Desire" was evidently made with a view of securing Negro slaves for sale. Josselyn says, in 1627, that the English colony on the Island of Barbados had "in a short time increased to twenty thousand, besides Negroes."[269] And in 1637 he says that the New Englanders "sent the male children of Pequets to the Bermudus."[270] It is quite likely that many individuals of large means and estates had a few Negro slaves quite early,--perhaps earlier than we have any record; but as a public enterprise in which the colony was interested, slavery began as early as 1638. "It will be observed," says Dr. Moore, "that this first entrance into the slave-trade was not a private, individual speculation. It was the enterprise of the authorities of the colony. And on the 13th of March, 1639, it was ordered by the General Court "that 3_l_ 8_s_ should be paid Lieftenant Davenport for the present, for charge disbursed for the slaves, which, when they have earned it, hee is to repay it back againe." The marginal note is "Lieft. Davenport to keep ye slaves." (Mass. Rec. i. 253.[271]) So there can be no doubt as to the permanent establishment of the institution of slavery as early as 1639, while before that date the institution existed in a patriarchal condition. But there isn't the least fragment of history to sustain the haphazard statement of Emory Washburn, that slavery existed in Massachusetts "from the time Maverick was found dwelling on Noddle's Island in 1630."[272] We are sure this assertion lacks the authority of historical data. It is one thing for a historian to think certain events happened at a particular time, but it is quite another thing to be able to cite reliable authority in proof of the assertion.[273] But no doubt Mr. Washburn relies upon Mr. Palfrey, who refers his reader to Mr. Josselyn. Palfrey says, "Before Winthrop's arrival, there were two negro slaves in Massachusetts, held by Mr. Maverick, on Noddle's Island."[274] Josselyn gives the only account we have of the slaves on Noddle's Island. The incident that gave rise to this scrap of history occurred on the 2d of October, 1639. Winthrop was chosen governor in the year 1637.[275] It was in this year, on the 26th of February, that the slave-ship "Desire" landed a cargo of Negroes in the colony. Now, if Mr. Palfrey relies upon Josselyn for the historical trustworthiness of his statement that there were two Negroes in Massachusetts before Winthrop arrived, he has made a mistake. There is no proof for the assertion. That there were three Negroes on Noddle's Island, we have the authority of Josselyn, but nothing more. And if the Negro queen who kicked Josselyn's man out of bed had been as long in the island as Palfrey and Washburn indicate, she would have been able to explain her grief to Josselyn in English. We have no doubt but what Mr. Maverick got his slaves from the ship "Desire" in 1638, the same year Winthrop was inaugurated governor.

In Massachusetts, as in the other colonies, slavery made its way into individual families first; thence into communities, where it was clothed with the garment of usage and custom;[276] and, finally, men longing to enjoy the fruit of unrequited labor gave it the sanction of statutory law. There was not so great a demand for slaves in Massachusetts as in the Southern States; and yet they had their uses in a domestic way, and were, consequently, sought after. As early as 1641 Massachusetts adopted a body of fundamental laws. The magistrates,[277] armed with authority from the crown of Great Britain, had long exercised a power which well-nigh trenched upon the personal rights of the people. The latter desired a revision of the laws, and such modifications of the power and discretion of the magistrates as would be in sympathy with the spirit of personal liberty that pervaded the minds of the colonists. But while the people sought to wrest an arbitrary power from the unwilling hands of their judges, they found no pity in their hearts for the poor Negroes in their midst, who, having served as slaves because of their numerical weakness and the passive silence of justice, were now to become the legal and statutory vassals--for their life-time--of a liberty-loving and liberty-seeking people! In the famous "Body of Liberties" is to be found the first statute establishing slavery in the United States. It is as follows:--

"It is ordered by this court, and the authority thereof;
that there shall never be any bond slavery, villainage or
captivity amongst us, unless it be lawful captives taken in
just wars, as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us,
and such shall have the liberties and christian usage which
the law of God established in Israel concerning such persons
doth morally require; provided this exempts none from
servitude, who shall be judged thereto by authority."[278]

We have omitted the old spelling, but none of the words, as they appeared in the original manuscript. There isn't the shadow of a doubt but what this law has been preserved inviolate.[279]

There has been considerable discussion about the real bearing of this statute. Many zealous historians, in discussing it, have betrayed more zeal for the good name of the Commonwealth than for the truth of history. Able lawyers--and some of them still survive--have maintained, with a greater show of learning than of facts, that this statute abolished slavery in Massachusetts. But, on the other hand, there are countless lawyers who pronounce it a plain and unmistakable law, "creating and establishing slavery." An examination of the statute will help the reader to a clear understanding of it. To begin with, this law received its being from the existent _fact_ of slavery in the colony. From the practice of a few holding Negroes as slaves, it became general and prodigious. Its presence in society called for lawful regulations concerning it. While it is solemnly declared "that there shall never be any bond slavery, villianage, or captivity" in the colony, there were three provisos; viz., "lawful captives taken in just wares," those who would "sell themselves or are sold to us," and such as "shall be judged thereto by authority." Under the foregoing conditions slavery was plainly established in Massachusetts. The "just wares" were the wars against the Pequod Indians. That these were made prisoners and slaves, we have the universal testimony of all writers on the history of Massachusetts. Just what class of people would "sell themselves" into slavery we are at a loss to know! We can, however, understand the meaning of the words, "or are sold to us." This was an open door for the traffic in human beings; for it made it lawful for to sell slaves to the colonists, and lawful for the latter to purchase them. Those who were "judged thereto by authority" were those in slavery already and such as should come into the colony by shipping.

This statute is wide enough to drive a load of hay through. It is not the work of a novice, but the labored and skilful product of great law learning.

"The law must be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous
facts of history. At the time it was made (1641), what had
its authors to provide for?

"1. Indian slaves--their captives taken in war.

"2. Negro slaves--their own importations of 'strangers,'
obtained by purchase or exchange.

"3. Criminals--condemned to slavery as a punishment for
offences.

"In this light, and only in this light, is their legislation
intelligible and consistent. It is very true that the code
of which this law is a part 'exhibits throughout the hand of
the practised lawyer, familiar with the principles and
securities of English Liberty;' but who had ever heard, at
that time, of the 'common-law rights' of Indians and
Negroes, or anybody else but Englishmen?

"Thus stood the statute through the whole colonial period,
and it was never expressly repealed. Based on the Mosaic
code, it is an absolute recognition of slavery as a
legitimate status, and of the right of one man to sell
himself as well as that of another man to buy him. It
sanctions the slave-trade, and the perpetual bondage of
Indians and Negroes, their children and their children's
children, and entitles Massachusetts to precedence over any
and all the other colonies in similar legislation. It
anticipates by many years any thing of the sort to be found
in the statutes of Virginia, or Maryland, or South Carolina,
and nothing like it is to be found in the contemporary codes
of her sister colonies in New England."[280]

The subject had been carefully weighed; and, lacking authority for legalizing a crime against man, the Mosaic code was cited, and in accordance with its _humane_ provisions, slaves were to be treated. But it was _authority_ for slavery that the cunning lawyer who drew the statute was seeking, and not precedents to determine the kind of treatment to be bestowed upon the slave. Under it "human slavery existed for nearly a century and a half without serious challenge;"[281] and here, as well as in Virginia, it received the sanction of the Church and courts. It grew with its growth, and strengthened with its strength; until, as an organic institution, it had many defenders and few apologists.[282]

"This article gives express sanction to the slave-trade, and
the practice of holding Negroes and Indians in perpetual
bondage, anticipating by many years any thing of the sort
to be found in the statutes of Virginia or Maryland."[283]

And it is rather strange, in the light of this plain statute establishing and legalizing the purchase of slaves, that Mr. Washburn's statement, unsustained, should receive the public indorsement of so learned a body as the Massachusetts Historical Society!

"But, after all [says Mr. Washburn], the laws on this
subject, as well as the practice of the government, were
inconsistent and anomalous, indicating clearly, that whether
Colony or Province, so far as it felt free to follow its own
inclinations, uncontrolled by the action of the mother
country, Massachusetts was hostile to slavery as an
institution!"[284]

No doubt Massachusetts was "inconsistent" in seeking liberty for her white citizens while forging legal chains for the Negro. And how far the colony "felt free to follow its own inclinations" Chief-Justice Parsons declares from the bench. Says that eminent jurist,--

"Slavery was introduced into this country [Massachusetts]
soon after its first settlement, and was tolerated until the
ratification of the present Constitution--of 1780."[285]

So here we find an eminent authority declaring that slavery followed hard upon the heels of the Pilgrim Fathers, "and was tolerated" until 1780. Massachusetts "felt free" to tear from the iron grasp of the imperious magistrates the liberties of the people, but doubtless felt not "free" enough to blot out "the crime and folly of an evil time." And yet for years lawyers and clergymen, orators and statesmen, historians and critics, have stubbornly maintained, that, while slavery did creep into the colony, and did exist, it was "not probably by force of any law, for none such is found or known to exist."(?)[286]

Slavery having been firmly established in Massachusetts, the next step was to make it hereditary. This was done under the sanction of the highest and most solemn forms of the courts of law. It is not our purpose to give this subject the attention it merits, in this place; but in a subsequent chapter it will receive due attention. We will, however, say in passing, that it was the opinion of many lawyers in the last century, some of whom served upon the bench in Massachusetts, that children followed the condition of their mothers. Chief-Justice Parsons held that "the issue of the female slave, according to the maxim of the civil law, was the property of her master." And, subsequently, Chief-Justice Parker rendered the following opinion:--

"The practice was ... to consider such issue as slaves, and
the property of the master of the parents, liable to be sold
and transferred like other chattels, and as assets in the
hands of executors and administrators.... We think there is
no doubt that, at any period of our history, the issue of a
slave husband and a free wife would have been declared free.
His children, if the issue of a marriage with a slave,
would, immediately on their birth, become the property of
his master, or of the master of the female slave."[287]

This decision is strengthened by the statement of Kendall in reference to the wide-spread desire of Negro slaves to secure free Indian wives, in order to insure the freedom of their children. He says,--

"While slavery was supposed to be maintainable by law in
Massachusetts, there was a particular temptation to Negroes
for taking Indian wives, the children of Indian women being
acknowledged to be free."[288]

We refer the reader, with perfect confidence, to our friend Dr. George H. Moore, who, in his treatment of this particular feature of slavery in Massachusetts, has, with great research, put down a number of zealous friends of the colony who have denied, with great emphasis, that any child was ever born into slavery there. Neither the opinion of Chief-Justice Dana, nor the naked and barren assertions of historians Palfrey, Sumner, and Washburn,--great though the men were,--can dispose of the _historical reality of hereditary slavery in Massachusetts_, down to the adoption of the Constitution of 1780.

The General Court of Massachusetts issued an order in 1645[289] for the return of certain kidnapped or stolen Negroes to their native country. It has been variously commented upon by historians and orators. The story runs, that a number of ships, plying between New-England seaport towns and Madeira and the Canaries, made it their custom to call on the coast of Guinea "to trade for negroes." Thus secured, they were disposed of in the slave-markets of Barbadoes and the West Indies. The New-England slave-market did not demand a large supply. Situated on a cold, bleak, and almost sterile coast, Massachusetts lacked the conditions to make slave-trading as lucrative as the Southern States; but, nevertheless, she disposed of quite a number, as the reader will observe when we examine the first census. A ship from the town of Boston consorted with "some Londoners" with the object of gaining slaves. Mr. Bancroft[290] says that "upon the Lord's day, invited the natives aboard one of their ships," and then made prisoners of such as came; which is not mentioned by Hildreth.[291] The latter writer says, that "on pretence of some quarrel with the natives," landed a small cannon called a "murderer," attacked the village on Sunday; and having burned the village, and killed many, made a few prisoners. Several of these prisoners fell to the Boston ship. On account of a disagreement between the captain and under officers of the ship, as well as the owners, the story of the above affair was detailed before a Boston court. Richard Saltonstall was one of the magistrates before whom the case was tried. He was moved by the recital of the cruel wrong done the Africans, and therefore presented a petition to the court, charging the captain and mate with the threefold crime of "murder," "man-stealing," and "sabbath-breaking."[292]

It seems that by the Fundamental Laws, adopted by the people in 1641, the first two offences were punishable by death, and all of them "capitall, by the law of God." The court doubted its jurisdiction over crimes committed on the distant coast of Guinea. But article ninety-one of "The Body of Liberties" determined who were lawful slaves,--those who sold themselves or were sold, "lawful captives taken in just wares," and those "judged thereto by authority." Had the unfortunate Negroes been purchased, there was no law in Massachusetts to free them from their owners; but having been kidnapped, unlawfully obtained, the court felt that it was its plain duty to bear witness against the "sin of man-stealing." For, in the laws adopted in 1641, among the "Capital Laws," at the latter part of article ninety-four is the following: "If any man stealeth a man, or mankind, he shall surely be put to death."[293] There is a marginal reference to Exod. xxi. 16. Dr. Moore does not refer to this in his elaborate discussion of statute on "bond slavery." And Winthrop says that the magistrates decided that the Negroes, "having been procured not honestly by purchase, but by the unlawful act of kidnaping," should be returned to their native country. That there was a criminal code in the colony, there can be no doubt; but we have searched for it in vain. Hildreth[294] says it was printed in 1649, but that there is now no copy extant.

The court issued an order about the return of the kidnapped Negroes, which we will give in full, on account of its historical value, and because of the difference of opinion concerning it.

"The general court conceiving themselves bound by the first
opportunity to bear witness against the heinous, and crying
sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely
redress for what is past, and such a law for the future, as
may sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to
do in such vile and odious courses, justly abhorred of all
good and just men, do order that the negro interpreter with
others unlawfully taken, be by the first opportunity at the
charge of the country for the present, sent to his native
country (Guinea) and a letter with him of the indignation of
the court thereabouts, and justice thereof, desiring our
honored governor would please put this order in
execution."[295]

This "protest against man-stealing" has adorned and flavored many an oration on the "position of Massachusetts" on the slavery question. It has been brought out "to point a moral and adorn a tale" by the proud friends of the Commonwealth; but the law quoted above against "man-stealing," the language of the "protest," the statute on "bond servitude," and the practices of the colonists for many years afterwards, prove that many have gloried, but not according to the truth.[296] When it came to the question of damages, the court said: "For the negars (they being none of his, _but stolen_) we thinke meete to allow nothing."[297]

So the decision of the court was based upon law,--the prohibition against "man-stealing." And it should not be forgotten that many of the laws of the colony were modelled after the Mosaic code. It is referred to, apologetically, in the statute of 1641; and no careful student can fail to read between the lines the desire there expressed to refer to the Old Testament as authority for slavery. Now, slaves were purchased by Abraham, and the New-England "doctors of the law" were unwilling to have slaves stolen when they could be bought[298] so easily. Dr. Moore says, in reference to the decision,--

"In all the proceedings of the General Court on this
occasion, there is not a trace of anti-slavery opinion or
sentiment, still less of anti-slavery legislation; though
both have been repeatedly claimed for the honor of the
colony."[299]

And Dr. Moore is not alone in his opinion; for Mr. Hildreth says this case "in which Saltonstall was concerned has been magnified by too precipitate an admiration into a protest on the part of Massachusetts against the African slave-trade. So far, however, from any such protest being made, at the very birth of the foreign commerce of New England the African slave-trade became a regular business."[300] There is now, therefore, no room to doubt but what the decision was rendered on a technical point of law, and not inspired by an anti-slavery sentiment.

As an institution, slavery had at first a stunted growth in Massachusetts, and did not increase its victims to any great extent until near the close of the seventeenth century. But when it did begin a perceptible growth, it made rapid and prodigious strides. In 1676 there were about two hundred slaves in the colony, and they were chiefly from Guinea and Madagascar.[301] In 1680 Gov. Bradstreet, in compliance with a request made by the home government, said that the slave-trade was not carried on to any great extent. They were introduced in small lots, and brought from ten to forty pounds apiece. He thought the entire number in the colony would not reach more than one hundred and twenty-five. Few were born in the colony, and none had been baptized up to that time.[302] The year 1700 witnessed an unprecedented growth in the slave-trade. From the 24th of January, 1698, to the 25th of December, 1707,[303] two hundred Negroes were imported into the colony,--quite as many as in the previous sixty years. In 1708 Gov. Dudley's report to the board of trade fixed the number of Negroes at five hundred and fifty, and suggested that they were not so desirable as white servants, who could be used in the army, and in time of peace turn their attention to planting. The prohibition against the Negro politically and in a military sense, in that section of the country, made him almost valueless to the colonial government struggling for deliverance from the cruel laws of the mother country. The white servant could join the "minute-men," plough with his gun on his back, go to the church, and, having received the blessing of the parish minister, could hasten to battle with the proud and almost boastful feelings of a Christian freeman! But the Negro, bond and free, was excluded from all these sacred privileges. Wronged, robbed of his freedom,--the heritage of all human kind,--he was suspicioned and contemned for desiring that great boon. On the 17th of February, 1720, Gov. Shute placed the number of slaves--including a few Indians--in Massachusetts at two thousand. During the same year thirty-seven males and sixteen females were imported into the colony.[304] We are unable to discover whether these were counted in the enumeration furnished by Gov. Shute or not. We are inclined to think they were included. In 1735 there were two thousand six hundred[305] bond and free in the colony; and within the next seventeen years the Negro population of Boston alone reached 1,541.[306]

In 1754 the colonial government found it necessary to establish a system of taxation. Gov. Shirley was required to inform the House of Representatives as to the different kinds of taxable property. And from a clause in his message, Nov. 19, 1754, on the one hundred and nineteenth page of the Journal, we infer two things; viz., that slaves were chattels or real estate, and, therefore, taxable. The governor says, "There is one part of the Estate, viz., the Negro slaves, which I am at a loss how to come at the knowledge of, without your assistance." In accordance with the request for assistance on this matter, the Legislature instructed the assessors of each town and district within the colony to secure a correct list of all Negro slaves, male and female, from sixteen years old and upwards, to be deposited in the office of the secretary of state.[307] The result of this enumeration was rather surprising; as it fixed the Negro population at 4,489,--quite an increase over the last enumeration. Again, in 1764-65, another census of the Negroes was taken; and they were found to be 5,779.

Here, as in Virginia, an impost tax was imposed upon all Negro slaves imported into the colony. We will quote section 3 of the Act of October, 1705, requiring duty upon imported Negroes; because many are disposed to discredit some historical statements about slavery in Massachusetts.

"SECT. 3. And be it further enacted by the authority
aforesaid, that from and after the first day of May, in the
year one thousand seven hundred and six, every master of
ship or vessel, merchant or other person, importing or
bringing into this province any negroe or negroes, male or
female, of what age soever, shall enter their number, names
and sex in the impost office; and the master shall insert
the same in the manifest of his lading, and shall pay to the
commissioner and receiver of the impost, four pounds per
head for every such negro, male or female; and as well the
master, as the ship or vessel wherein they are brought,
shall be security for payment of the said duty; and both or
either of them shall stand charged in the law therefor to
the commissioner, who may deny to grant a clearing for such
ship or vessel, until payment be made, or may recover the
same of the master, at the commissioner's election, by
action of debt, bill, plaint or information in any of her
majesty's courts of record within this province."[308]

A fine of eight pounds was imposed upon any person refusing or neglecting to make a proper entry of each slave imported, in the "Impost Office." If a Negro died within six weeks after his arrival, a drawback was allowed. If any slave was sold again into another Province or plantation within a year after his arrival, a drawback was allowed to the person who paid the impost duty. A subsequent and more stringent law shows that there was no desire to abate the traffic. In August, 1712, a law was passed "prohibiting the importation or bringing into the province any Indian servants or slaves;"[309] but it was only intended as a check upon the introduction of the Tuscaroras and other "revengeful" Indians from South Carolina.[310] Desperate Indians and insubordinate Negroes were the occasion of grave fears on the part of the colonists.[311] Many Indians had been cruelly dealt with in war; in peace, enslaved and wronged beyond their power of endurance. Their stoical nature led them to the performance of desperate deeds. There is kinship in suffering. There is an unspoken language in sorrow that binds hearts in the indissoluble fellowship of resolve. Whatever natural and national differences existed between the Indian and the Negro--one from the bleak coasts of New England, the other from the tropical coast of Guinea--were lost in the commonality of degradation and interest. The more heroic spirits of both races began to grow restive under the yoke. The colonists were not slow to observe this, and hence this law was to act as a restraint upon and against "their rebellion and hostilities." And the reader should understand that it was not an anti-slavery measure. It was not "hostile to slavery" as a system: it was but the precaution of a guilty and ever-gnawing public conscience.

Slavery grew. There was no legal obstacle in its way. It had the sanction of the law, as we have already shown, and what was better still, the sympathy of public sentiment. The traffic in slaves appears to have been more an object in Boston than at any period before or since. For a time dealers had no hesitation in advertising them for sale in their own names. At length a very few who advertised would refer purchasers to "inquire of the printer, and know further."[312] This was in 1727, fifteen years after the afore-mentioned Act became a law, and which many apologists would interpret as a specific and direct prohibition against slavery; but there is no reason for such a perversion of so plain an Act.

Slavery in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, in self-defence had to claim as one of its necessary and fundamental principles, that the slave was either _naturally_ inferior to the other races, or that, by some fundamentally inherent law in the institution itself, the master was justified in placing the lowest possible estimate upon his slave property. "Property" implied absolute control over the thing possessed. It carried in its broad meaning the awful fact, not alone of ownership, but of the supremacy of the will of the owner. Mr. Addison says,--

"What color of excuse can there be for the contempt with
which we treat this part of our species, that we should not
put them upon the common foot of humanity, that we should
only _set an insignificant fine upon the man who murders
them_; nay, that we should, as much as in us lies, cut them
off from the prospect of happiness in another world, as well
as in this, and deny them that which we look upon as the
proper means for obtaining it?"[313]

None whatever! And yet the Puritans put the Negro slaves in their colony on a level with "horses and hogs." Let the intelligent American of to-day read the following remarkable note from Judge Sewall's diary, and then confess that facts are stranger than fiction.

"1716. I essayed June 22, to prevent Indians and Negroes
being rated with Horses and Hogs; but could not prevail.
Col. Thaxter bro't it back, and gave as a reason of y'r
Nonagreement, They were just going to make a new
valuation."[314]

It had been sent to the deputies, and was by them rejected, and then returned to the judge by Col. Thaxter. The House was "just going to make a New Valuation" of the property in the colony, and hence did not care to exclude slaves from the list of chattels,[315] in which they had always been placed.

"In 1718, all Indian, Negro, and Mulatto servants for life
were estimated as other Personal Estate--viz.: Each male
servant _for life_ above fourteen years of age, at fifteen
pounds value; each female servant for life, above fourteen
years of age, at ten pounds value. The assessor might make
abatement for cause of age or infirmity. Indian, Negro, and
Mulatto Male servants _for a term of years_ were to be
numbered and rated as other Polls, and not as Personal
Estate. In 1726, the assessors were required to estimate
Indian, Negro, and Mulatto servants proportionably as other
Personal Estate, according to their sound judgment and
discretion. In 1727, the rule of 1718 was restored, but
during one year only, for in 1728 the law was the same as
that of 1726; and so it probably remained, including all
such servants, as well for term of years as for life, in the
ratable estates. We have seen the supply-bills for 1736,
1738, 1739, and 1740, in which this feature is the same.

"And thus they continued to be rated with horses, oxen,
cows, goats, sheep, and swine, until after the commencement
of the War of the Revolution.[316]

On the 22d of April, 1728, the following notice appeared in a Boston newspaper:--

"Two very likely Negro girls. Enquire two doors from the
Brick Meetinghouse in Middle-street. At which place is to be
sold women's stays, children's good callamanco
stiffened-boddy'd coats, and childrens' stays of all sorts,
and women's hoop-coats; all at very reasonable rates."[317]

So the "likely Negro girls" were mixed up in the sale of "women's stays" and "hoop-coats"! It was bad enough to "rate Negroes with Horses and Hogs," but to sell them with second-hand clothing was an incident in which is to be seen the low depth to which slavery had carried the Negro by its cruel weight. A human being could be sold like a cast-off garment, and pass without a bill of sale.[318] The announcement that a "likely Negro woman about nineteen years and a child about six months of age _to be sold together or apart_"[319] did not shock the Christian sensibilities of the people of Massachusetts. A babe six months old could be torn from the withered and famishing bosom of the young mother, and sold with other articles of merchandise. How bitter and how cruel was such a separation, mothers[320] only can know; and how completely lost a community and government are that regard with complacency a hardship so diabolical, the Christians of America must be able to judge.

The Church has done many cruel things in the name of Christianity. In the dark ages it filled the minds of its disciples with fear, and their bodies with the pains of penance. It burned Michael Servetus, and it strangled the scientific opinions of Galileo. And in stalwart old Massachusetts it thought it was doing God's service in denying the Negro slave the right of Christian baptism."

"The famous French _Code Noir_ of 1685 obliged every planter
to have his Negroes baptized, and properly instructed in the
doctrines and duties of Christianity. Nor was this the only
important and humane provision of that celebrated statute,
to which we may seek in vain for any parallel in British
Colonial legislation."[321]

On the 25th of October, 1727, Matthias Plant[322] wrote, in answer to certain questions put to him by "the secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel," as follows:--

"6. Negro slaves, one of them is desirous of baptism, but
_denied by her master_, a woman of wonderful sense, and
prudent in matters, of equal knowledge in Religion with most
of her sex, far exceeding any of her own nation that ever
yet I heard of."[323]

It was nothing to her master that she was "desirous of baptism," "of wonderful sense," "prudent in matters," and "of equal knowledge in religion with most of her sex!" She was a Negro slave, and as such was denied the blessings of the Christian Church.

"The system of personal servitude was fast disappearing from
Western Europe, where the idea had obtained that it was
inconsistent with Christian duty for Christians to hold
Christians as slaves. But this charity did not extend to
heathen and infidels. The same system of morality which held
the possessions of unbelievers as lawful spoils of war,
delivered over their persons also to the condition of
servitude. Hence, in America, the slavery of the Indians,
and presently of Negroes, whom experience proved to be much
more capable of enduring the hardships of that
condition."[324]

And those who were so fortunate as to secure baptism were not freed thereby.[325] In Massachusetts no Negro ever had the courage to seek his freedom through this door, and, therefore, there was no necessity for legislation there to define the question, but in the Southern colonies the law declared that baptism did not secure the liberty of the subject. As early as 1631 a law was passed admitting no man to the rights of "freemen" who was not a member of some church within the limits of the jurisdiction of the colony.[326] The blessings of a "freeman" were reserved for church-members only. Negroes were not admitted to the church, and, therefore, were denied the rights of a freeman.[327] Even the mother country had no bowels of compassion for the Negro. In 1677 the English courts held that a Negro slave was _property_.

"That, being usually bought and sold among merchants as
merchandise, and _also being infidels_, there might be a
property in them sufficient to maintain trover."[328]

So as "infidels" the Negro slaves of Massachusetts were deprived of rights and duties belonging to a member of the Church and State.

"Zealous for religion as the colonists were, very little
effort was made to convert the Negroes, owing partly, at
least, to a prevalent opinion that neither Christian
brotherhood nor the law of England would justify the holding
Christians as slaves. Nor could repeated colonial
enactments to the contrary entirely root out this idea, for
it was not supposed that a colonial statute could set aside
the law of England."[329]

But the deeper reason the colonists had for excluding slaves from baptism, and hence citizenship, was twofold; viz., to keep in harmony with the Mosaic code in reference to "strangers" and "Gentiles," and to keep the door of the Church shut in the face of the slave; because to open it to him was to emancipate him in course of time. Religious and secular knowledge were not favorable to slavery. The colonists turned to the narrow, national spirit of the Old Testament, rather than to the broad and catholic spirit of the New Testament, for authority to withhold the mercies of the Christian religion from the Negro slaves in their midst.

The rigorous system of domestic slavery established in the colony of Massachusetts bore its bitter fruit in due season. It was impossible to exclude the slaves from the privileges of the Church and State without inflicting a moral injury upon the holy marriage relation. In the contemplation of the law the slave was a chattel, an article of merchandise. The custom of separating parent and child, husband and wife, was very clear proof that the marriage relation was either positively ignored by the institution of slavery, or grossly violated under the slightest pretext. All well-organized society or government rests upon this sacred relation. But slavery, with lecherous grasp and avaricious greed, trailed the immaculate robes of marriage in the moral filth of the traffic in human beings. True, there never was any prohibition against the marriage of one slave to another slave,--for they _tried_ to breed slaves in Massachusetts!--but there never was any law encouraging the lawful union of slaves until after the Revolutionary War, in 1786. We rather infer from the following in the Act of October, 1705, that the marriage relation among slaves had been left entirely to the caprices of the master.

"And no master shall unreasonably deny marriage to his Negro
with one of the same nation; any law, usage or custom to the
contrary notwithstanding."[330]

We have not been able to discover "any law" positively prohibiting marriage among slaves; but there was a custom denying marriage to the Negro, that at length received the weight of positive law. Mr. Palfrey says,--

"From the reverence entertained by the fathers of New
England for the nuptial tie, it is safe to infer that slave
husbands and wives were never separated."[331]

We have searched faithfully to find the slightest justification for this inference of Mr. Palfrey, but have not found it. There is not a line in any newspaper of the colony, until 1710, that indicates the concern of the people in the lawful union of slaves. And there was no legislation upon the subject until 1786, when an "Act for the orderly Solemnization of Marriage" passed. That Negro slaves were united in marriage, there is abundant evidence, but not many in this period. It was almost a useless ceremony when "the customs and usages" of slavery separated them at the convenience of the owner. The master's power over his slaves was almost absolute. If he wanted to sell the children and keep the parents, his decision was not subject to any court of law. It was final. If he wanted to sell the wife of his slave man into the rice-fields of the Carolinas or into the West India Islands, the tears of the husband only exasperated the master. "The fathers of New England" had _no_ reverence for the "nuptial tie" among their slaves, and, therefore, tore slave families asunder without the least compunction of conscience. "Negro children were considered an incumbrance in a family, and, when weaned, were given away like puppies," says the famous Dr. Belknap. But after the Act of 1705; "their banns were published like those of white persons;" and public sentiment began to undergo a change on the subject. The following Negro marriage was prepared by the Rev. Samuel Phillips of Andover. His ministry did not commence until 1710; and, therefore, this marriage was prepared subsequent to that date. He realized the need of something, and acted accordingly.

"You, Bob, do now, in ye Presence of God and these
Witnesses, Take Sally to be your wife;

"Promising, that so far as shall be consistent with ye
Relation which you now Sustain as a servant, you will
Perform ye Part of an Husband towards her: And in
particular, as you shall have ye Opportunity & Ability, you
will take proper Care of her in Sickness and Health, in
Prosperity & Adversity;

"And that you will be True & Faithful to her, and will
Cleave to her only, so long as God, in his Providence,
shall continue your and her abode in Such Place (or Places)
as that you can conveniently come together.--Do You thus
Promise?

"You, Sally, do now, in ye Presence of God, and these
Witnesses, Take Bob to be your Husband;

"Promising, that so far as your present Relation as a
Servant shall admit, you will Perform the Part of a Wife
towards him: and in particular,

"You Promise that you will Love him; And that as you shall
have the Opportunity & Ability, you will take a proper Care
of him in Sickness and Health; in Prosperity and Adversity:

"And you will cleave to him only, so long as God, in his
Providence, shall continue his & your Abode in such Place
(or Places) as that you can come together.--Do you thus
Promise? I then, agreeable to your Request, and with ye
Consent of your Masters & Mistresses, do Declare that you
have License given you to be conversant and familiar
together as Husband and Wife, so long as God shall continue
your Places of Abode as aforesaid; And so long as you Shall
behave yourselves as it becometh servants to doe:

"For you must both of you bear in mind that you remain
still, as really and truly as ever, your Master's Property,
and therefore it will be justly expected, both by God and
Man, that you behave and conduct yourselves as Obedient and
faithful Servants towards your respective Masters &
Mistresses for the Time being:

"And finally, I exhort and Charge you to beware lest you
give place to the Devil, so as to take occasion from the
license now given you, to be lifted up with Pride, and
thereby fall under the Displeasure, not of Man only, but of
God also; for it is written, that God resisteth the Proud
but giveth Grace to the humble.

"I shall now conclude with Prayer for you, that you may
become good Christians, and that you may be enabled to
conduct as such; and in particular, that you may have Grace
to behave suitably towards each Other, as also dutifully
towards your Masters & Mistresses, Not with Eye Service as
Men pleasers, ye Servants of Christ doing ye Will of God
from ye heart, &c.

["ENDORSED] NEGRO MARRIAGE."[332]

Where a likely Negro woman was courted by the slave of another owner, and wanted to marry, she was sold, as a matter of humanity, "with her wearing apparel" to the owner of the man. "A Bill of Sale of a Negro Woman Servant in Boston in 1724, recites that 'Whereas Scipio, of Boston aforesaid, Free Negro Man and Laborer, proposes Marriage to Margaret, the Negro Woman Servant of the said Dorcas Marshall [a Widow Lady of Boston]: Now to the Intent that the said Intended Marriage may take Effect, and that the said Scipio may Enjoy the said Margaret without any Interruption,' etc., she is duly sold, with her apparel, for Fifty Pounds."[333] Within the next twenty years the Governor and his Council found public opinion so modified on the question of marriage among the blacks, that they granted a Negro a divorce on account of his wife's adultery with a white man. But in Quincy's Reports, page 30, note, quoted by Dr. Moore, in 1758 the following rather loose decision is recorded: that the child of a female slave never married according to any of the forms prescribed by the laws of this land, by another slave, who "had kept her company with her master's consent," was not a bastard.

The Act of 1705 forbade any "christian" from marrying a Negro, and imposed a fine of fifty pounds upon any clergyman who should join a Negro and "christian" in marriage. It stood as the law of the Commonwealth until 1843, when it was repealed by an "Act relating to Marriage between Individuals of Certain Races."

As to the political rights of the Negro, it should be borne in mind, that, as he was excluded from the right of Christian baptism, hence from the Church; and as "only church-members enjoyed the rights of freemen, it is clear that the Negro was not admitted to the exercise of the duties of a freeman.[334] Admitting that there were instances where Negroes received the rite of baptism, it was so well understood as not entitling them to freedom or political rights, that it was never questioned during this entire period. Free Negroes were but little better off than the slaves. While they might be regarded as owning their own labor, political rights and ecclesiastical privileges were withheld from them.

"They became the objects of a suspicious legislation, which
deprived them of most of the rights of freemen, and reduced
them to a social position very similar, in many respects, to
that which inveterate prejudice in many parts of Europe has
fixed upon the Jews."

Though nominally free, they did not come under the head of "Christians." Neither freedom, nor baptism in the Church, could free them from the race-malice of the whites, that followed them like the fleet-footed "Furies." There were special regulations for free Negroes. The Act of 1703, forbidding slaves from being out at night after the hour of nine o'clock, extended to free Negroes.[335] In 1707 an Act was passed "regulating of free negroes."[336] It recites that "free negroes and mulattos, able of body, and fit for labor, who are not charged with trainings, watches, and other services,"[337] shall perform service equivalent to militia training. They were under the charge of the officer in command of the military company belonging to the district where they resided. They did fatigue-duty. And the only time, that, by law, the Negro was admitted to the trainings, was between 1652 and 1656. But there is no evidence that the Negroes took advantage of the law. Public sentiment is more potent than law. In May, 1656, the law of 1652, admitting Negroes to the trainings, was repealed.

"For the better ordering and settling of severall cases in
the military companyes within this jurisdiction, which, upon
experience, are found either wanting or inconvenient, it is
ordered and declared by this Court and the authoritie
thereof, that henceforth no negroes or Indians, although
servants to the English, shal be armed or permitted to
trayne, and y't no other person shall be exempted from
trayning but such as some law doth priveledge."[338]

And Gov. Bradstreet, in his report to the "Committee for Trade," made in May, 1680, says,--

"We account all generally from Sixteen to Sixty that are
healthfull and strong bodys, both House-holders and Servants
fit to beare Armes, _except Negroes_ and _slaves_, whom wee
arme not."[339]