Chapter XIV: The Colony of Massachusetts (2)

The law of 1707--which is the merest copy of the Virginia law on the same subject--requires free Negroes to answer fire-alarms with the company belonging to their respective precincts. They were not allowed to entertain slave friends at their houses, without the permission of the owner of the slaves. To all prohibitions there was affixed severe fines in large sums of money. In case of a failure to pay these fines, the delinquent was sent to the House of Correction; where, under severe discipline, he was constrained to work out his fine at the rate of one shilling per day! If a Negro "presume to smite or strike any person of the English, or other Christian nation," he was publicly flogged by the justice before whom tried, at the discretion of that officer.

During this period the social condition of the Negroes, bond and free, was very deplorable. The early records of the town of Boston preserve the fact that one Thomas Deane, in the year 1661, was prohibited from employing a Negro in the manufacture of hoops, under a penalty of twenty shillings; for what reason is not stated.[340] No churches or schools, no books or teachers, they were left to the gloom and vain imaginations of their own fettered intellects. John Eliot "had long lamented it with a Bleeding and Burning Passion, that the English used their Negroes but as their Horses or their Oxen, and that so little care was taken about their immortal souls; he looked upon it as a Prodigy, that any wearing the _Name_ of _Christians_ should so much have the _Heart_ of _Devils_ in them, as to prevent and hinder the Instruction of the poor _Blackamores_, and confine the souls of their miserable Slaves to a _Destroying Ignorance_, merely for fear of thereby losing the Benefit of their Vassalage; but now he made a motion to the _English_ within two or three Miles of him, that at such a time and place they would send their _Negroes_ once a week unto him: For he would then _Catechise_ them, and _Enlighten_ them, to the utmost of his power in things of their Everlasting Peace; however, he did not live to make much progress in this undertaking."[341] The few faint voices of encouragement, that once in a great while reached them from the pulpit[342] and forum, were as strange music, mellowed and sweetened by the distance. The free and slave Negroes were separated by law, were not allowed to communicate together to any great extent. They were not allowed in numbers greater than three, and then, if not in the service of some white person, were liable to be arrested, and sent to the House of Correction.

"The slave was the property of his master as much as his ox
or his horse; _he had no civil rights_ but that of
protection from cruelty; he could acquire no property nor
dispose of any[343] without the consent of his master.... We
think he had not the capacity to communicate a civil
relation to his children, which he did not enjoy himself,
except as the property of his master."[344]

With but small means the free Negroes of the colony were unable to secure many comforts in their homes. They were hated and dreaded more than their brethren in bondage. They could judge, by contrast, of the abasing influences of slavery. They were only nominally free; because they were taxed[345] without representation,--had no voice in the colonial government.

But, notwithstanding the obscure and neglected condition of the free Negroes, some of them by their industry, frugality, and aptitude won a place in the confidence and esteem of the more humane of the white population. Owning their own time, many of the free Negroes applied themselves to the acquisition of knowledge. Phillis Wheatley, though nominally a slave for some years, stood at the head of the intellectual Negroes of this period. She was brought from Africa to the Boston slave-market, where, in 1761, she was purchased by a benevolent white lady by the name of Mrs. John Wheatley. She was naked, save a piece of dirty carpet about her loins, was delicate of constitution, and much fatigued from a rough sea-voyage. Touched by her modest demeanor and intelligent countenance, Mrs. Wheatley chose her from a large company of slaves. It was her intention to teach her the duties of an ordinary domestic; but clean clothing and wholesome diet effected such a radical change in the child for the better, that Mrs. Wheatley changed her plans, and began to give her private instruction. Eager for learning, apt in acquiring, though only eight years old, she greatly surprised and pleased her mistress. Placed under the instruction of Mrs. Wheatley's daughter, Phillis learned the English language sufficiently well as to be able to read the most difficult portions of the Bible with ease and accuracy. This she accomplished in less than a year and a half. She readily mastered the art of writing; and within four years from the time she landed in the slave-market in Boston, she was able to carry on an extensive correspondence on a variety of topics.

Her ripening intellectual faculties attracted the attention of the refined and educated people of Boston, many of whom sought her society at the home of the Wheatleys. It should be remembered, that this period did not witness general culture among the masses of white people, and certainly no facilities for the education of Negroes. And yet some cultivated white persons gave Phillis encouragement, loaned her books, and called her out on matters of a literary character. Having acquired the principles of an English education, she turned her attention to the study of the Latin language,[346] and was able to do well in it. Encouraged by her success, she translated one of Ovid's tales. The translation was considered so admirable that it was published in Boston by some of her friends. On reaching England it was republished, and called forth the praise of many of the reviews.

Her manners were modest and refined. Her nature was sensitive and affectionate. She early gave signs of a deep spiritual experience,[347] which gave tone and character to all her efforts in composition and poetry. There was a charming vein of gratitude in all her private conversations and public utterances, which her owners did not fail to recognize and appreciate. Her only distinct recollection of her native home was, that every morning early _her mother poured out water before the rising sun_. Her growing intelligence and keen appreciation of the blessings of civilization overreached mere animal grief at the separation from her mother. And as she knew more of the word of God, she became more deeply interested in the condition of her race.

At the age of twenty her master emancipated her. Naturally delicate, the severe climate of New England, and her constant application to study, began to show on her health. Her friend and mother, for such she proved herself to be, Mrs. Wheatley, solicitous about her health, called in eminent medical counsel, who prescribed a sea-voyage. A son of Mrs. Wheatley was about to visit England on mercantile business, and therefore took Phillis with him. For the previous six years she had cultivated her taste for poetry; and, at this time, her reputation was quite well established. She had corresponded with persons in England in social circles, and was not a stranger to the English. She was heartily welcomed by the leaders of the society of the British metropolis, and treated with great consideration. Under all the trying circumstances of high social life, among the nobility and rarest literary genius of London, this redeemed child of the desert, coupled to a beautiful modesty the extraordinary powers of an incomparable conversationalist. She carried London by storm. Thoughtful people praised her; titled people dined her; and the press extolled the name of Phillis Wheatley, the African poetess.

Prevailed upon by admiring friends, in 1773[348] she gave her poems to the world. They were published in London in a small octavo volume of about one hundred and twenty pages, comprising thirty-nine pieces. It was dedicated to the Countess of Huntingdon, with a picture of the poetess, and a letter of recommendation signed by the governor and lieutenant-governor, with many other "respectable citizens of Boston."

* * * * *

TO THE PUBLIC.

As it has been repeatedly suggested to the publisher, by
persons who have seen the manuscript, that numbers would be
ready to suspect they were not really the writings of
PHILLIS, he has procured the following attestation,
from the most respectable characters in _Boston_, that none
might have the least ground for disputing their _Original_.

We, whose Names are under-written, do assure the World, that
the Poems specified in the following page were (as we verily
believe) written by PHILLIS, a young Negro Girl,
who was, but a few Years since, brought, an uncultivated
Barbarian, from _Africa_, and has ever since been, and now
is, under the disadvantage of serving as a Slave in a family
in this town. She has been examined by some of the best
judges, and is thought qualified to write them.

_His Excellency_, THOMAS HUTCHINSON, _Governor_.
_The Hon_. ANDREW OLIVER, _Lieutenant Governor_.

_Hon_. Thomas Hubbard, | _Rev_. Charles Chauncy,
_Hon_. John Erving, | _Rev_. Mather Byles,
_Hon_. James Pitts, | _Rev_. Ed Pemberton,
_Hon_. Harrison Gray, | _Rev_. Andrew Elliot,
_Hon_. James Bowdoin, | _Rev_. Samuel Cooper,
John Hancock, _Esq_. | _Rev_. Samuel Mather,
Joseph Green, _Esq_. | _Rev_. John Moorhead,
Richard Cary, _Esq_. | _Mr_. John Wheatley, her master.

* * * * *

The volume has passed through several English and American editions, and is to be found in all first-class libraries in the country. Mrs. Wheatley sickened, and grieved daily after Phillis. A picture of her little ward, sent from England, adorned her bedroom; and she pointed it out to visiting friends with all the sincere pride of a mother. On one occasion she exclaimed to a friend, "See! Look at my Phillis! Does she not seem as though she would speak to me?" Getting no better, she sent a loving request to Phillis to come to her at as early a moment as possible. With a deep sense of gratitude to Mrs. Wheatley for countless blessings bestowed upon her, Phillis hastened to return to Boston. She found her friend and benefactor just living, and shortly had the mournful satisfaction of closing her sightless eyes. The husband and daughter followed the wife and mother quickly to the grave. Young Mr. Wheatley married, and settled in England. Phillis was alone in the world.

"She soon after received an offer of marriage from a
respectable colored man, of Boston. The name of this
individual was _John_ Peters.[349] He kept a grocery in
Court Street, and was a man of handsome person. He wore a
wig, carried a cane, and quite acted out '_the gentleman_.'
In an evil hour, he was accepted; and, though he was a man
of talents and information,--writing with fluency and
propriety, and, at one period, reading law,--he proved
utterly unworthy of the distinguished woman who honored him
by her alliance."

Her married life was brief. She was the mother of one child, that died early. Ignorant of the duties of domestic life, courted and flattered by the cultivated, Peters's jealousy was at length turned into harsh treatment. Tenderly raised, and of a delicate constitution, Phillis soon went into decline, and died Dec. 5, 1784, in the thirty-first[350] year of her life, greatly beloved and sincerely mourned by all whose good fortune it had been to know of her high mental endowments and blameless Christian life.

Her influence upon the rapidly growing anti-slavery sentiment of Massachusetts was considerable. The friends of humanity took pleasure in pointing to her marvellous achievements, as an evidence of what the Negro could do under favorable circumstances. From a state of nudity in a slave-market, a stranger to the English language, this young African girl had won her way over the rough path of learning; had conquered the spirit of caste in the best society of conservative old Boston; had brought two continents to her feet in admiration and amazement at the rare poetical accomplishments of a child of Africa![351]

She addressed a poem to Gen. Washington that pleased the old warrior very much. We have never seen it, though we have searched diligently. Mr. Sparks says of it,--

"I have not been able to find, among Washington's papers the
letter and poem addressed to him. They have doubtless been
lost. From the circumstance of her invoking the muse in his
praise, and from the tenor of some of her printed pieces,
particularly one addressed to King George seven years
before, in which she compliments him on the repeal of the
Stamp Act, it may be inferred, that she was a Whig in
politics after the American way of thinking; and it might be
curious to see in what manner she would eulogize liberty and
the rights of man, while herself, nominally at least, in
bondage."[352]

Gen. Washington, in a letter to Joseph Reed, bearing date of the 10th of February, 1776, from Cambridge, refers to the letter and poem as follows:--

"I recollect nothing else worth giving you the trouble of,
unless you can be amused by reading a letter and poem
addressed to me by Miss Phillis Wheatley. In searching over
a parcel of papers the other day, in order to destroy such
as were useless, I brought it to light again. At first, with
a view of doing justice to her poetical genius, I had a
great mind to publish the poem; but not knowing whether it
might not be considered rather as a mark of my own vanity,
than as a compliment to her, I laid it aside,[353] till I
came across it again in the manner just mentioned."[354]

This gives the world an "inside" view of the brave old general's opinion of the poem and poetess, but the "outside" view, as expressed to Phil's, is worthy of reproduction at this point.

CAMBRIDGE, 28 February, 1776.

MISS PHILLIS,--Your favor of the 26th of October did not
reach my hands, till the middle of December. Time enough,
you will say, to have given an answer ere this. Granted. But
a variety of important occurrences, continually interposing
to distract the mind and withdraw the attention, I hope will
apologize for the delay, and plead my excuse for the seeming
but not real neglect. I thank you most sincerely for your
polite notice of me, in the elegant lines you enclosed; and
however undeserving I may be of such encomium and panegyric,
the style and manner exhibit a striking proof of your
poetical talents; in honor of which, and as a tribute justly
due to you, I would have published the poem, had I not been
apprehensive, that, while I only meant to give the world
this new instance of your genius, I might have incurred the
imputation of vanity. This, and nothing else, determined me
not to give it place in the public prints.

If you should ever come to Cambridge, or near head-quarters,
I shall be happy to see a person so favored by the Muses,
and to whom nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her
dispensations.

I am, with great respect, your obedient, humble servant,

GEORGE WASHINGTON.[355]

This letter is a handsome compliment to the poetess, and does honor to both the head and heart of the general. His modesty, so characteristic, has deprived history of its dues. But it is consoling to know that the sentiments of the poem found a response in the patriotic heart of the _first soldier of the Revolution, and the Father of his Country_!

While Phillis Wheatley stands out as one of the most distinguished characters of this period, and who, as a Colored person, had no equal, yet she was not the only individual of her race of intellect and character. A Negro boy from Africa was purchased by a Mr. Slocum, who resided near New Bedford, Mass. After he acquired the language, he turned his thoughts to freedom, and in a few years, by working beyond the hours he devoted to his master, was enabled to buy himself from his master. He married an Indian woman named Ruth Moses, and settled at Cutterhunker, in the Elizabeth Islands, near New Bedford. In a few years, through industry and frugality, John Cuffe--the name he took as a freeman--was enabled to purchase a good farm of one hundred (100) acres. Every year recorded new achievements, until John Cuffe had a wide reputation for wealth, honesty, and intelligence. He applied himself to books, and secured, as the ripe fruit of his studious habits, a fair business education. Both himself and wife were Christian believers; and to lives of industry and increasing secular knowledge, they added that higher knowledge which makes alive to "everlasting life." Ten children were born unto them,--four boys and six girls. One of the boys, Paul Cuffe, became one of the most distinguished men of color Massachusetts has produced. The reader will be introduced to him in the proper place in the history. John Cuffe died in 1745, leaving behind, in addition to considerable property, a good name, which is of great price.[356]

Richard Dalton, Esq., of Boston, owned a Negro boy whom he taught to read any Greek writer without hesitancy. Mr. Dalton was afflicted with weak eyes; and his fondness for the classics would not allow him to forego the pleasure of them, and hence his Negro boy Cæsar was instructed in the Greek.[357] "The Boston Chronicle" of Sept. 21, 1769, contains the following advertisement: "To be sold, a Likely Little negroe boy, who _can speak the French language_, and very fit for a Valet."

With increasing evidence of the Negro's capacity for mental improvement, and fitness for the duties and blessings of a freeman, and the growing insolence and rigorous policy of the mother country, came a wonderful change in the colony. The Negroes were emboldened to ask for and claim rights as British subjects, and the more humane element among the whites saw in a relaxation of the severe treatment of the blacks security and immunity in war. But anti-slavery sentiment in Massachusetts was not born of a genuine desire to put down a wicked and cruel traffic in human beings. Two things operated in favor of humane treatment of the slaves,--an impending war, and the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Sommersett case. The English government was yearly increasing the burdens of the colonists. The country was young, its resources little known. The people were largely engaged in agricultural pursuits. There were no tariff laws encouraging or protecting the labor or skill of the people. Civil war seemed inevitable. Thoughtful men began to consider the question as to which party the Negroes of the colony would contribute their strength. It was no idle question to determine whether the Negroes were Tories or Whigs. As early as 1750 the questions as to the legality of holding Negroes in slavery in British colonies began to be discussed in England and New England. "What, precisely, the English law might be on the subject of slavery, still remained a subject of doubt."[358] Lord Holt held that slavery was a condition unknown to English law,--that the being in England was evidence of freedom. This embarrassed New-England planters in taking their slaves to England. The planters banded for their common cause, and secured the written opinion of Yorke and Talbot, attorney and solicitor general of England. They held that slaves _could_ be held in England as well as in America; that baptism did not confer freedom: and the opinion stood as sound law for nearly a half-century.[359] The men in England who lived on the money wrung from the slave-trade, the members of the Royal African Company, came to the rescue of the institution of slavery. In order to maintain it by law in the American colonies, it had to be recognized in England. The people of Massachusetts took a lively interest in the question. In 1761, at a meeting "in the old court-house," James Otis,[360] in a speech against the "writs of assistance," struck a popular chord on the questions of "The Rights of the Colonies," afterwards published (1764) by order of the Legislature. He took the broad ground, "that the colonists, black and white, born here, are free-born British subjects and entitled to all the essential rights of such."[361] In 1766 Nathaniel Appleton and James Swan distinguished themselves in their defence of the doctrines of "liberty for all." It became the general topic of discussion in private and public, and country lyceums and college societies took it up as a subject of forensic disputation.[362] In the month of May, 1766, the representatives of the people were instructed to advocate the total abolition of slavery. And on the 16th of March, 1767, a resolution was offered to see whether the instructions should be adhered to, and was unanimously carried in the affirmative. But it should be remembered that British troops were in the colony, in the streets of Boston. The mutterings of the distant thunder of revolution could be heard. Public sentiment was greatly tempered toward the Negroes. On the 31st of May, 1609, the House of Representatives of Massachusetts resolved against the presence of troops, and besought the governor to remove them. His Excellency disclaimed any power under the circumstances to interfere. The House denounced a standing army in time of peace, without the consent of the General Court, as "without precedent, and unconstitutional."[363] In 1769 one of the courts of Massachusetts gave a decision friendly to a slave, who was the plaintiff. This stimulated the Negroes to an exertion for freedom. The entire colony was in a feverish state of excitement. An anonymous Tory writer reproached Bostonians for desiring freedom when they themselves enslaved others.

"'What!' cries our good people here, 'Negro slaves in
Boston! It cannot be.' It is nevertheless true. For though
the Bostonians have grounded their rebellion on the
'immutable laws of nature,' yet, notwithstanding their
resolves about freedom in their Town-meetings, they actually
have in town 2,000 Negro slaves."[364]

These trying and exasperating circumstances were but the friendly precursors of a spirit of universal liberty.

In England the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Sommersett[365] case had encouraged the conscientious few who championed the cause of the slave. Charles Stewart, Esq., of Boston, Mass., had taken to London with him his Negro slave, James Sommersett. The Negro was seized with a sickness in the British metropolis, and was thereupon abandoned by his master. He afterwards regained his health, and secured employment. His master, learning of his whereabouts, had him arrested, and placed in confinement on board the vessel "Ann and Mary," Capt. John Knowls, commander, then lying in the Thames, but soon to sail for Jamaica, where Sommersett was to be sold.

"On the 3rd of Dec., 1771, affidavits were made by Thomas
Walklin, Elizabeth Cade, and John Marlow, that James
Sommersett, a Negro, was confined in irons on board a ship
called the _Ann_ and _Mary_, John Knowls commander, lying in
the Thames, and bound for Jamaica. Lord Mansfield, upon the
prayer of the above subscribers, allowed a writ of _habeas
corpus_, requiring the return of the body of Sommersett
before his lordship with an explanation of the cause of his
detention. On the 9th of Dec., Capt. Knowls produced the
body of Sommersett in Court. Lord Mansfield, after a
preliminary examination, referred the matter to the Court of
King's Bench, and, therefore, took sureties, and bound
Sommersett over 'till 'the 2nd day of the next Hillary
term.' At the time appointed the defendant with counsel, the
reputed master of the Negro man Sommersett, and Capt. John
Knowls, appeared before the court. Capt. Knowls recited the
reasons that led him to detain Sommersett: whereupon the
counsel for the latter asked for time in which to prepare an
argument against the return. Lord Mansfield gave them until
the 7th of February. At the time appointed Mr. Sergeant Davy
and Mr. Sergeant Glynn argued against the return, and had
further argument 'postponed' till Easter term,' when Mr.
Mansfield, Mr. Alleyne, and Mr. Hargrave argued on the same
side. 'The only question before us is whether the cause on
the return is sufficient. If it is, the Negro must be
remanded; if it is not, he must be discharged. The return
states that the slave departed and refused to serve,
whereupon he was kept to be sold abroad. So high an act of
dominion must be recognized by the law of the country where
it is used. The power of a master over his slave has been
exceedingly different in different countries. The state of
slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being
introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by
positive law, which preserves its force long after the
reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was
created is erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing
can be suffered to support it but positive law. Whatever
inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I
cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of
England, and therefore the black must be discharged.'"

The influence of this decision was wide-spread, and hurtful to slavery in the British colonies in North America. It poured new life into the expiring hopes of the Negroes, and furnished a rule of law for the advocates of "freedom for all." It raised a question of law in all the colonies as to whether the colonial governments could pass an Act legalizing that which was "contrary to English law."[366]

Notwithstanding the general and generous impulse for liberty, the indissoluble ties of avarice, and the greed for the unearned gains of the slave-trade, made public men conservate to conserve the interests of those directly interested in the inhuman traffic.

"In an age when the interests of trade guided legislation,
this branch of commerce possessed paramount attractions. Not
a statesman exposed its enormities; and, if Richard Baxter
echoed the opinions of Puritan Massachusetts, if Southern
drew tears by the tragic tale of Oronooko, if Steele
awakened a throb of indignation by the story of Inkle and
Yarico, if Savage and Shenstone pointed their feeble
couplets with the wrongs of 'Afric's sable children,' if the
Irish metaphysician Hutcheson, struggling for a higher
system of morals,--justly stigmatized the traffic; yet no
public opinion lifted its voice against it. English ships,
fitted out in English cities, under the special favor of the
royal family, of the ministry, and of parliament, stole from
Africa, in the years from 1700 to 1750, probably a million
and a half of souls, of whom one-eighth were buried in the
Atlantic, victims of the passage; and yet in England no
general indignation rebuked the enormity; for the public
opinion of the age was obedient to materialism."[367]

Humane masters who desired to emancipate their slaves were embarrassed by a statute unfriendly to manumission. The Act of 1703[368] deterred many persons from emancipating their slaves on account of its unjust and hard requirements. And under it quite a deal of litigation arose. It required every master who desired to liberate his slave, before doing so, to furnish a bond to the treasurer of the town or place in which he resided, in a sum not less than fifty pounds.[369] This was to indemnify the town or place in case the Negro slave thus emancipated should, through lameness or sickness, become a charge. In case a master failed to furnish such security, his emancipated slaves were still contemplated by the law as in bondage, "notwithstanding any manumission or instrument of freedom to them made or given." Judge Sewall, in a letter to John Adams, cites a case in point.

"A man, by will, gives his Negro his liberty, and leaves him
a legacy. The executor consents that the Negro shall be
free, but refuseth to give bond to the selectmen to
indemnify the town against any charge for his support in
case he should become poor (without which, by the province
law, he is not manumitted), or to pay him the legacy.

_Query_. Can he recover the legacy, and how?

I have just observed that in your last you desire me to say
something towards discouraging you from removing to
Providence; and you say, any thing will do. At present, I
only say, you will do well enough where you are. I will
explain myself, and add something further, in some future
letter. I have not time to enlarge now, for which I believe
you will not be inconsolably grieved. So, to put you out of
pain, your hearty friend,

JONATHAN SEWALL."[370]

Mr. Adams replied as follows:--

"Now. _En mesure le manner_. The testator intended plainly
that his negro should have his liberty and a legacy;
therefore the law will presume that he intended his executor
should do all that without which he could have neither. That
this indemnification was not in the testator's mind, cannot
be proved from the will any more than it could be proved, in
the first case above, that the testator did not know a fee
simple would pass a will without the word heirs; nor than,
in the second case, that the devise of a trust, that might
continue forever, would convey a fee-simple without the like
words. I take it, therefore, that the executor of this will
is, by implication, obliged to give bonds to the town
treasurer, and, in his refusal, is a wrongdoer; and I cannot
think he ought to be allowed to take advantage of his own
wrong, so much as to allege this want of an indemnification
to evade an action of the case brought for the legacy by the
negro himself.

But why may not the negro bring a special action of the case
against the executor, setting forth the will, the devise of
freedom and a legacy, and then the necessity of
indemnification by the province law, and then a refusal to
indemnify, and, of consequence, to set free and to pay the
legacy?

Perhaps the negro is free at common law by the devise. Now,
the province law seems to have been made only to oblige the
master to maintain his manumitted slave, and not to declare
a manumission in the master's lifetime, or at his death,
void. Should a master give his negro his freedom, under his
hand and seal, without giving bond to the town, and should
afterwards repent and endeavor to recall the negro into
servitude, would not that instrument be a sufficient
discharge against the master?"[371]

It is pleaded in extenuation of this Act, that it was passed to put a stop to the very prevalent habit of emancipating old and decrepit Negroes after there was no more service in them. If this be true, it reveals a practice more cruel than slavery itself.

In 1702 the representatives of the town of Boston were "desired to promote the encouraging the bringing of White servants and to put a period to Negroes being slaves."[372] This was not an anti-slavery measure, as some have wrongly supposed.[373] It was not a resolution or an Act: it was simply a request; and one that the "Representatives" did not grant for nearly a century afterwards.

"In 1718, a committee of both Houses prepared a bill
entitled 'An Act for the Encouraging the Importation of
White Male Servants, and the preventing the Clandestine
bringing in of Negroes and Molattoes.'"

It was read in Council a first time on the 16th of June, and "sent down recommended" to the House; where it was also read a first time on the same day. The next day it was read a second time, and, "on the question for a third reading, decided in the negative."[374] In 1706 an argument or "Computation that the Importation of Negroes is not so profitable as that of White Servants," was published in Boston.[375] It throws a flood of light upon the Act mentioned above, and shows that the motives that inspired the people who wanted a period put to the holding of Negroes as slaves were grossly material and selfish. It was the first published article on the subject, and is worthy of reproduction in full. It is reprinted from "The Boston News-Letter," No. 112, June 10, 1706, in the New-York Historical Society.

"By last Year's Bill of Mortality for the Town of _Boston_,
in _Number 100 News-Letter_, we are furnished with a List of
44 Negroes dead last year, which being computed one with
another at 30_l._ per Head, amounts to the Sum of One
Thousand three hundred and Twenty Pounds, of which we would
make this Remark: That the Importing of Negroes into this or
the Neighboring Provinces is not so beneficial either to the
Crown or Country, as White Servants would be.

"For Negroes do not carry Arms to defend the Country as
Whites do.

"Negroes are generally Eye-Servants, great Thieves, much
addicted to Stealing, Lying and Purloining.

"They do not People our Country as Whites would do whereby
we should be strengthened against an Enemy.

"By Encouraging the Importing of White Men Servants,
allowing somewhat to the Importer, most Husbandmen in the
Country might be furnished with Servants for 8, 9, or 10_l._
a Head, who are not able to launch out 40 or 50_l._ for a
Negro the now common Price.

"A Man then might buy a White Man Servant we suppose for
10_l._ to serve 4 years, and Boys for the same price to
Serve 6, 8, or 10 years; If a White Servant die, the Loss
exceeds not 10_l._ but if a Negro dies, 'tis a very great
loss to the Husbandman; Three years Interest of the price of
the Negro, will near upon if not altogether purchase a White
Man Servant.

"If necessity call for it, that the Husbandman must fit out
a Man against the Enemy; if he has a Negro he cannot send
him, but if he has a White Servant, 'twill answer the end,
and perhaps save his son at home.

"Were Merchants and Masters Encouraged as already said to
bring in Men Servants, there needed not be such Complaint
against Superiors Impressing our Children to the War, there
would then be Men enough to be had without Impressing.

"The bringing in of such Servants would much enrich this
Province, because Husbandmen would not only be able far
better to manure what Lands are already under Improvement,
but would also improve a great deal more that now lyes waste
under Woods, and enable this Province to set about raising
of Naval Stores, which would be greatly advantageous to the
Crown of England, and this Province.

"For the raising of Hemp here, so as to make Sail-cloth and
Cordage to furnish but our own shipping, would hinder the
Importing it, and save a considerable sum in a year to make
Returns for which we now do, and in time might be
capacitated to furnish England not only with Sail-cloth and
Cordage, but likewise with Pitch, Tar, Hemp, and other
Stores which they are now obliged to purchase in Foreign
Nations.

"Suppose the Government here should allow Forty Shillings
per head for five years, to such as should Import every of
these years 100 White Men Servants, and each to serve 4
years, the cost would be but 200_l._ a year, and a 1000_l._
for the 5 years. The first 100 Servants, being free the 4th
year they serve the 5th for Wages, and the 6th there is 100
that goes out into the Woods, and settles a 100 Families to
Strengthen and Baracado us from the Indians, and also a 100
Families more every year successively.

"And here you see that in one year the Town of Boston has
lost 1320_l._ by 44 Negroes, which is also a loss to the
Country in general, and for a less loss (if it may
improperly be so called) for a 1000_l._ the Country may have
500 Men in 5 years time for the 44 Negroes dead in one year.

"A certain person within these 6 years had two Negroes dead
computed both at 60_l._ which would have procured him six
white Servants at 10_l._ per head to have Served 24 years,
at 4 years apiece, without running such a great risque, and
the Whites would have strengthened the Country, that Negroes
do not.

"'Twould do well that none of those Servants be liable to be
Impressed during their Service of Agreement at their first
Landing.

"That such Servants being Sold or Transported out of this
Province during the time of their Service, the Person that
buys them be liable to pay 3_l._ into the Treasury."

Comment would be superfluous. It is only necessary for the reader to note that there is not a humane sentiment in the entire article.

But universal liberty was not without her votaries. All had not bowed the knee to Baal. The earliest friend of the Indian and the Negro was the scholarly, pious, and benevolent Samuel Sewall, at one time one of the judges of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, and afterwards the chief justice. He hated slavery with a righteous hatred, and early raised his voice and used his pen against it. He contributed the first article against slavery printed in the colony. It appeared as a tract, on the 24th of June, 1700, and was "Printed by Bartholomew Green and John Allen." It is withal the most remarkable document of its kind we ever saw. It is reproduced here to show the reader what a learned Christian judge thought of slavery one hundred and eighty-two years ago.

"THE SELLING OF JOSEPH A MEMORIAL.

"By the Hon'ble JUDGE SEWALL in New England.

"FORASMUCH _as_ LIBERTY _is in real value next unto Life;
None ought to part with it themselves, or deprive others of
it, but upon most mature consideration._

"The Numerousness of Slaves at this Day in the Province, and
the Uneasiness of them under their Slavery, hath put many
upon thinking whether the Foundation of it be firmly and
well laid; so as to sustain the Vast Weight that is built
upon it. It is most certain that all Men, as they are the
Sons of _Adam_, are Co-heirs, and have equal Right unto
Liberty, and all other outward Comforts of Life. GOD _hath
given the Earth [with all its commodities] unto the Sons of
Adam, Psal., 115, 16. And hath made of one Blood all Nations
of Men, for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath
determined the Times before appointed, and the bounds of
their Habitation: That they should seek the Lord. Forasmuch
then as we are the Offspring of_ GOD, &c. _Acts, 17, 26, 27,
29_. Now, although the Title given by the last ADAM doth
infinitely better Men's Estates, respecting GOD and
themselves; and grants them a most beneficial and inviolable
Lease under the Broad Seal of Heaven, who were before only
Tenants at Will; yet through the Indulgence of GOD to our
First Parents after the Fall, the outward Estate of all and
every of their Children, remains the same as to one another.
So that Originally, and Naturally, there is no such thing as
Slavery. _Joseph_ was rightfully no more a slave to his
Brethren, than they were to him; and they had no more
Authority to _Sell_ him, than they had to _Slay_ him. And if
_they_ had nothing to do to sell him; the _Ishmaelites_
bargaining with them, and paying down Twenty pieces of
Silver, could not make a Title. Neither could _Potiphar_
have any better Interest in him than the _Ishmaelites_ had.
_Gen. 37, 20, 27, 28_. For he that shall in this case plead
_Alteration of Property_, seems to have forfeited a great
part of his own claim to Humanity. There is no proportion
between Twenty Pieces of Silver and LIBERTY. The Commodity
itself is the Claimer. If _Arabian_ Gold be imported in any
quantities, most are afraid to meddle with it, though they
might have it at easy rates; lest it should have been
wrongfully taken from the Owners, it should kindle a fire to
the Consumption of their whole Estate. 'Tis pity there
should be more Caution used in buying a Horse, or a little
lifeless dust, than there is in purchasing Men and Women:
Whereas they are the Offspring of GOD, and their Liberty is,

... _Auro pretiofior Omni._

"And seeing GOD hath said, _He that Stealeth a Man, and
Selleth him, or if he be found in his Hand, he shall surely
be put to Death._ Exod. 21, 16. This Law being of
Everlasting Equity, wherein Man-Stealing is ranked among the
most atrocious of Capital Crimes: What louder Cry can there
be made of that Celebrated Warning

_Caveat Emptor!_

"And all things considered, it would conduce more to the
Welfare of the Province, to have White Servants for a Term
of Years, than to have Slaves for Life. Few can endure to
hear of a Negro's being made free; and indeed they can
seldom use their Freedom well; yet their continual aspiring
after their forbidden Liberty, renders them Unwilling
Servants. And there is such a disparity in their Conditions,
Colour, and Hair, that they can never embody with us, & grow
up in orderly Families, to the Peopling of the Land; but
still remain in our Body Politick as a kind of extravasat
Blood. As many Negro Men as there are among us, so many
empty Places are there in our Train Bands, and the places
taken up of Men that might make Husbands for our Daughters.
And the Sons and Daughters of _New England_ would become
more like _Jacob_ and _Rachel_, if this Slavery were thrust
quite out of Doors. Moreover it is too well known what
Temptations Masters are under, to connive at the
Fornication of their Slaves; lest they should be obliged to
find them Wives, or pay their Fines. It seems to be
practically pleaded that they might be lawless; 'tis thought
much of, that the Law should have satisfaction for their
Thefts, and other Immoralities; by which means, _Holiness to
the Lord_ is more rarely engraven upon this sort of
Servitude. It is likewise most lamentable to think, how in
taking Negroes out of _Africa_, and selling of them here,
That which GOD has joined together, Men do boldly rend
asunder; Men from their Country, Husbands from their Wives,
Parents from their Children. How horrible is the
Uncleanness, Mortality, if not Murder, that the Ships are
guilty of that bring great Crowds of these miserable Men and
Women. Methinks when we are bemoaning the barbarous Usage of
our Friends and Kinsfolk in _Africa_, it might not be
unreasonable to enquire whether we are not culpable in
forcing the _Africans_ to become Slaves amongst ourselves.
And it may be a question whether all the Benefit received by
_Negro_ Slaves will balance the Accompt of Cash laid out
upon them; and for the Redemption of our own enslaved
Friends out of _Africa_. Besides all the Persons and Estates
that have perished there.

"Obj. 1. _These Blackamores are of the Posterity of Cham,
and therefore are under the Curse of Slavery_. Gen. 9, 25,
26, 27.

"_Ans._ Of all Offices, one would not beg this; viz.
Uncall'd for, to be an Executioner of the Vindictive Wrath
of God; the extent and duration of which is to us uncertain.
If this ever was a Commission; How do we know but that it is
long since out of Date? Many have found it to their Cost,
that a Prophetical Denunciation of Judgment against a Person
or People, would not warrant them to inflict that evil. If
it would, _Hazael_ might justify himself in all he did
against his master, and the _Israelites_ from _2 Kings 8,
10, 12_.

"But it is possible that by cursory reading, this Text may
have been mistaken. For _Canaan_ is the Person Cursed three
times over, without the mentioning of _Cham_. Good
Expositors suppose the Curse entailed on him, and that this
Prophesie was accomplished in the Extirpation of the
_Canaanites_, and in the Servitude of the _Gibeonites. Vide
Pareum_. Whereas the Blackmores are not descended of
_Canaan_, but of Cush. Psal. 68, 31. _Princes shall come out
of Egypt_ [Mizraim]. _Ethiopia_ [Cush] _shall soon stretch
out her hands unto God_. Under which Names, all _Africa_ may
be comprehended; and their Promised Conversion ought to be
prayed for. _Jer. 13, 23. Can the Ethiopian change his
Skin?_ This shows that Black Men are the Posterity of
_Cush_. Who time out of mind have been distinguished by
their Colour. And for want of the true, _Ovid_ assigns a
fabulous cause of it.

_Sanguine tum credunt in corpora summa vocato
Æthiopum populos nigrum traxisse colorem_. Metamorph. lib. 2.

"Obj. 2. _The_ Nigers _are brought out of a Pagan Country,
into places where the Gospel is preached_.

"_Ans._ Evil must not be done, that good may come of it. The
extraordinary and comprehensive Benefit accruing to the
Church of God, and to _Joseph_ personally, did not rectify
his Brethren's Sale of him.

"Obj. 3. _The Africans have Wars one with another: Our Ships
bring lawful Captives taken in those wars_.

"_Answ._ For aught is known, their Wars are much such as
were between _Jacob's_ Sons and their Brother _Joseph_. If
they be between Town and Town; Provincial or National: Every
War is upon one side Unjust. An Unlawful War can't make
lawful Captives. And by receiving, we are in danger to
promote, and partake in their Barbarous Cruelties. I am
sure, if some Gentlemen should go down to the _Brewsters_ to
take the Air, and Fish: And a stronger Party from _Hull_
should surprise them, and sell them for Slaves to a Ship
outward bound; they would think themselves unjustly dealt
with; both by Sellers and Buyers. And yet 'tis to be feared,
we have no other Kind of Title to our _Nigers. Therefore all
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you
even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets._
Matt. 7, 12.

"Obj. 4. Abraham _had Servants bought with his money and
born in his House._

"_Ans._ Until the Circumstances of _Abraham's_ purchase be
recorded, no Argument can be drawn from it. In the mean
time, Charity obliges us to conclude, that He knew it was
lawful and good.

"It is Observable that the _Israelites_ were strictly
forbidden the buying or selling one another for Slaves.
_Levit. 25. 39. 46. Jer. 34, 8-22_. And GOD gaged His
Blessing in lieu of any loss they might conceit they
suffered thereby, _Deut._ 15. 18. And since the partition
Wall is broken down, inordinate Self-love should likewise be
demolished. GOD expects that Christians should be of a more
Ingenuous and benign frame of Spirit. Christians should
carry it to all the World, as the _Israelites_ were to carry
it one towards another. And for Men obstinately to persist
in holding their Neighbours and Brethren under the Rigor of
perpetual Bondage, seems to be no proper way of gaining
Assurance that God has given them Spiritual Freedom. Our
Blessed Saviour has altered the Measures of the ancient Love
Song, and set it to a most Excellent New Tune, which all
ought to be ambitious of Learning. _Matt. 5. 43. 44_. _John
13. 34_. These _Ethiopians_, as black as they are, seeing
they are the Sons and Daughters of the First _Adam_, the
Brethren and Sisters of the Last ADAM, and the Offspring of
GOD; They ought to be treated with a Respect agreeable.

"_Servitus perfecta voluntaria, inter Christianum &
Christianum, ex parte servi patientis saepe est licita, quia
est necessaria; sed ex parte domini agentis, & procurando &
exercendo, vix potest esse licita; quia non convenit regulæ
illi generali; Quaecunque volueritis ut faciant vobis
homines, ita & vos facite eis. Matt. 7, 12._

"_Perfecta servitus paenae, non potest jure locum habere,
nisi ex delicto gravi quod ultimum supplicium aliquo modo
meretur: quia Libertas ex naturali æstimatione proxime
accedit ad vitam ipsam, & eidem a multis præferri solet._

"Ames. Cas. Confc. Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Thes. 2. 3."

Judge Sewall's attack on slavery created no little stir in Boston; and the next year, 1701, Judge John Saffin, an associate of Judge Sewall, answered it in quite a lengthy paper.[376] Having furnished Judge Sewall's paper, it is proper that Judge Saffin's reply should likewise have a place here.

"JUDGE SAFFIN'S REPLY TO JUDGE SEWALL, 1701.

"A Brief and Candid Answer to a late Printed Sheet,
_Entituled_, The Selling of Joseph.

"THAT Honourable and Learned Gentleman, the Author of a
Sheet, Entituled, _The Selling of Joseph, A_ Memorial, seems
from thence to draw this conclusion, that because the Sons
of _Jacob_ did very ill in selling their Brother _Joseph_ to
the _Ishmaelites_, who were Heathens, therefore it is
utterly unlawful to Buy and Sell Negroes, though among
Christians; which Conclusion I presume is not well drawn
from the Premises, nor is the case parallel; for it was
unlawful for the _Israelites_ to Sell their Brethren upon
any account, or pretence whatsoever during life. But it was
not unlawful for the Seed of _Abraham_ to have Bond men, and
Bond women either born in their House, or bought with their
Money, as it is written of _Abraham, Gen. 14. 14._ & 21. 10.
& _Exod. 21. 16._ & _Levit. 25. 44. 45. 46 v._ After the
giving of the law: And in _Josh. 9. 23._ That famous Example
of the _Gibeonites_ is a sufficient proof where there no
other.

"To speak a little to the Gentlemans first Assertion: _That
none ought to part with their Liberty themselves, or deprive
others of it but upon mature consideration_; a prudent
exception, in which he grants, that upon some consideration
a man may be deprived of his Liberty. And then presently in
his next Position or Assertion he denies it, _viz.: It is
most certain, that all men as they are the Sons of_ Adam
_are Coheirs, and have equal right to Liberty, and all other
Comforts of Life_, which he would prove out of _Psal. 115.
16_. _The Earth hath he given to the Children of Men_. True,
but what is all this to the purpose, to prove that all men
have equal right to Liberty, and all outward comforts of
this life; which Position seems to invert the Order that God
hath set in the World, who hath Ordained different degrees
and orders of men, some to be High and Honourable, some to
be Low and Despicable; some to be Monarchs, Kings, Princes
and Governours, Masters and Commanders, others to be
Subjects, and to be Commanded; Servants of sundry sorts and
degrees, bound to obey; yea, some to be born Slaves, and so
to remain during their lives, as hath been proved. Otherwise
there would be a meer parity among men, contrary to that of
the Apostle, I. _Cor. 12 from the 13 to the 26 verse_, where
he sets forth (by way of comparison) the different sorts and
offices of the Members of the Body, indigitating that they
are all of use, but not equal, and of Like dignity. So God
hath set different Orders and Degrees of Men in the World,
both in Church and Common weal. Now, if this Position of
parity should be true, it would then follow that the
ordinary Course of Divine Providence of God in the World
should be wrong, and unjust, (which we must not dare to
think, much less to affirm) and all the sacred Rules,
Precepts and Commands of the Almighty which he hath given
the Sons of Men to observe and keep in their respective
Places, Orders and Degrees, would be to no purpose; which
unaccountably derogate from the Divine Wisdom of the most
High, who hath made nothing in vain, but hath Holy Ends in
all his Dispensations to the Children of men.

"In the next place, this worthy Gentleman makes a large
Discourse concerning the Utility and Conveniency to keep the
one, and inconveniency of the other; respecting white and
black Servants, which conduceth most to the welfare and
benefit of this Province: which he concludes to be white
men, who are in many respects to be preferred before Blacks;
who doubts that? doth it therefore follow, that it is
altogether unlawful for Christians to buy and keep Negro
Servants (for this is the thesis) but that those that have
them ought in Conscience to set them free, and so lose all
the money they cost (for we must not live in any known sin)
this seems to be his opinion; but it is a Question whether
it ever was the Gentleman's practice? But if he could
perswade the General Assembly to make an Act, That all that
have Negroes, and do set them free, shall be Reimbursed out
of the Publick Treasury, and that there shall be no more
Negroes brought into the country; 'tis probable there would
be more of his opinion; yet he would find it a hard task to
bring the Country to consent thereto; for then the Negroes
must be all sent out of the Country, or else the remedy
would be worse than the disease; and it is to be feared that
those Negroes that are free, if there be not some strict
course taken with them by Authority, they will be a plague
to this Country.