by Noel Rae
As a result of—or perhaps in spite of—these tactics, in 1759 the Quakers came “to the determination to disown such of their members as could not be persuaded to desist from the practice of holding slaves, or were concerned in the importation of slaves.” Lay, aged 82, was on his death-bed when the news was brought to him. “The venerable and constant friend and advocate of that oppressed race of men attentively listened to this heart-cheering intelligence, and after a few moments’ reflection on what he had heard, he rose from his chair, and in an attitude of devotional reverence, poured forth this pious ejaculation: ‘Thanksgiving and praise be rendered unto the Lord God!’ After a short pause, he added, ‘I can now die in peace.’”
Another Pennsylvania reformer was Anthony Benezet. Like Benjamin Lay, he dressed poorly, but “though mean in his personal appearance, such was the courtesy of his manners, and so evident the purity of his intentions, that he had ready access to people of all descriptions, and obtained the respect of the few whom he failed to influence.” After dabbling in business, Benezet became a schoolteacher at the Friends’ English School in Philadelphia. Soon he added night classes for slaves, declaring, “The notion, entertained by some, that the blacks are inferior in their capacities, is a vulgar prejudice, founded on the pride or ignorance of their lordly masters.” Later he set up the first public school for girls, and then, in 1770, the Negro School at Philadelphia. When he found that he couldn’t manage both schools, he left the first, and higher salaried, position. “Better is honest poverty than all the riches bought by the tears, and sweat, and blood of our fellow-creatures,” he wrote.
Benezet wrote several anti-slavery works: A Short Account of the Slave Trade, then A Caution and Warning to Great Britain and her Colonies, followed soon after by an expanded version of A Short Account, which was widely distributed in England, where, in the opinion of the abolitionist Thomas Clarkson, it “became instrumental beyond any other work ever before published in disseminating a proper knowledge and detestation of this trade.” Slavery, said Benezet, was “an evil of so deep a dye, and attended with such dreadful consequences that no well-disposed person (anxious for the welfare of himself, his country or posterity,) who knows the tyranny, oppression and cruelty with which this iniquitous trade is carried on, can be a silent and innocent spectator.”
After citing a number of horror stories, he set out to refute “the common arguments alleged in defense of the trade.” First, “That the slaves sold to the Europeans are captives taken in war, who would be destroyed by their conquerors if not thus purchased.” This “is without foundation. For altho’ there were doubtless wars amongst the Negroes before the Europeans began to trade with them, yet certain it is that since that time those calamities have prodigiously increased, which is principally owing to the solicitations of the white people, who have instigated the poor Africans by every method, even the most iniquitous and cruel, to procure slaves to load their Vessels.” Moreover “Government was instituted for the good of mankind; kings, princes, governors, are not proprietors of those who are subject to their authority; they have not a right to make them miserable. On the contrary, their authority is vested in them that they may, by the just exercise of it, promote the happiness of their people. Of course they have not a right to dispose of their liberty and to sell them for slaves.”
Another “common argument” was “that the Negroes are generally a stupid, savage people, whose situation in their own country is necessitous and unhappy, which has induced many to believe that the bringing them from their native land is rather a kindness than an injury.” But in fact, “The African blacks are as properly and truly men as the European whites; they are both of the same species, and are originally descended from the same parents; they have the same rational powers as we have; they are free moral agents, as we are, and many of them have as good natural genius, as good and brave a spirit as any of those to whom they are made slaves. To trade in blacks, then, is to trade in men. He that made us, made them, and all of the same clay. We are all the workmanship of His hands … For one man therefore to assault another, and by mere force to make a captive of him, not for any crime that he has been guilty of, but to make a penny of him, considering him as part of his possessions or goods with which he can do what he pleases, is robbing of God, which is sacrilege.”
This brought him to one of his main objectives: to warn his fellow-citizens of what would happen on Judgment Day. “Think of a future reckoning. Consider how you shall come off in the great and awful Day of Account. You now heap up riches, and live in pleasure. But oh! What will you do in the end thereof? And that is not far off. What if death should seize upon you, and hurry you out of this world under all that load of blood-guiltiness that now lies upon your souls? The Gospel expressly declares that thieves and murderers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Consider that at the same time, and by the same means you now treasure up worldly riches, you are treasuring up to yourselves wrath against the Day of Wrath, and vengeance that shall come upon the workers of iniquity, unless prevented by a timely repentance. And what greater iniquity, what crime that is more heinous, that carries in it more complicated guilt, can you name than that in the habitual deliberate practice of which you now live? Good God! How can you pray for mercy to Him that made you, or hope for any favour from Him that formed you, while you go on thus grossly and openly to dishonour him in debasing and destroying the noblest workmanship of his hands, in this lower world? He is the Father of Men; and do you think he will not resent such treatment of his offspring whom he hath so loved as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life? This love of God to man, revealed in the Gospel, is a great aggravation of your guilt; for if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” And so: “God grant that you may be made sensible of your guilt, and repent in time.”
VIRGINIA
Thanks to Captain John Smith, savior of the Jamestown colony, and other chroniclers, we know quite a lot about the early English settlers in Virginia; but we know very little about the first Africans. “About the last of August came in a Dutch man-of-war that sold us twenty Negars,” wrote John Rolfe (Pocahontas’ husband) to Sir Edwyn Sandys in London in 1619. That’s all, nothing about where they came from, or whether they were bought as slaves or as indentured servants. This was an important distinction, for although both classes were treated much the same—that is, quite badly—slaves served for life, but indentured servants only for a fixed period, usually between four to seven years. In return for their service they received free passage across the Atlantic, board and lodging, and when their time was up some new clothes, and perhaps also some land. After that they were free. During the colonial period, about half of all white newcomers came as indentured servants or as redemptioners—immigrants who paid for their passage by agreeing to be sold into temporary servitude on arrival.
Servants also differed from slaves in that they entered these indenture contracts more or less voluntarily, and if cheated or maltreated could appeal to a court for redress. This is what happened to an English serving girl called Charity Dallen, whose case was heard in Lower Norfolk County in July, 1649: “The deposition of Joseph Mulders, aged 23 or thereabouts, sworn and examined sayeth: That Deborah Fernehaugh, the Mistress of this deponent, did beat her maid servant in the quartering house before the dresser more liken a dog than a Christian, and that at a certain time I felt her head, which was beaten as soft as a sponge in one place, and that as there she was a-weeding she complained and said her back bone as she thought was broken with beating, and that I did see the maid’s arm naked which was full of black and blue bruises and pinches, and her neck likewise; and very often afterwards the said maid would have shown me how she had been beaten, but I refused to have seen it, saying it concerns me not, I will do my work and if my Mistress abuse you, you may complain.” This she did, and Mulders’ evidence being confirmed by other witnesses, the court ordered that the said “Charity Dallen shall no
longer remain in the house or service of her said mistress.” With very few exceptions, no such rescue was ever afforded a slave.
For a while Virginians tried importing “Indians of the Carib Islands,” probably Arawaks, the same nation that had produced Tituba, the star witness for the Salem Witch Trials. The experiment was not a success, a court declaring that “the said Indians have run away and hid themselves in the woods, attempting to go to the Indians of this country, as some of them have revealed and confessed. And for that they have stolen away divers goods, and attempted to kill some of our people, and for that especially they may hereafter be a means to overthrow the whole colony, have adjudged them to be presently taken and hanged till they be dead.”
During the seventeenth century the number of Negro slaves in Virginia was small—some three to five hundred in 1650, and about 6000 in 1700. Probably most came from the West Indies, rather than direct from Africa. There were also a number of free blacks, some of them landowners. One of them appears in this deposition made by Edwin Connaway, clerk of the Northampton court, in 1645: “That being at the house of Capt. Taylor, about the tenth day of July” he “did see Capt. Taylor and Anthony the Negro going into the corn field; and when they returned from the said corn field, the said Negro told this deponent, saying, ‘Now Mr. Taylor and I have divided our corn, and I am very glad of it now I know mine own. He finds fault with me that I do not work, but now I know mine own ground I will work when I please and play when I please.’ And the said Capt. Taylor asked the said Negro, saying, ‘Are you content with what you have?’ And the Negro answered, saying, ‘I am very well content with what I have,’ or words to that effect.”
Ten years later Anthony the Negro was the subject of another deposition, this one concerning the indenture of John Casor, also a Negro, “who demanded his freedom of his master Anthony Johnson; and further said that Johnson had kept him his servant seven years longer than he ought.” Johnson denied that Casor was indentured, and claimed him as a slave; but when several other witnesses said they had seen the indenture “Johnson was in fear,” and “his wife and his two sons persuaded the said Anthony Johnson to set the said John Casor free.”
As the number of slaves increased, the Virginia General Assembly kept pace with laws that reduced the rights of free blacks and turned slaves into chattels, with no rights at all:
1662. “Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand Assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother.” (This was a major departure from English law, where a person’s status was derived from the father.)
1667. “Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of their owners are made partakers of the blessed sacrament of baptism, should by virtue of their baptism be made free, It is enacted and declared … that the conferring of baptism doth not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom.”
1669. “Be it enacted … if any slave resist his master, and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his death shall not be accounted Felony.”
1680. “Whereas the frequent meeting of considerable numbers of Negro slaves under pretense of feasts and burials is judged of dangerous consequence; for prevention whereof for the future, Be it enacted … that from and after the publication of this law, it shall not be lawful for any Negro or other slave to carry or arm himself with any club, staff, gun, sword or any other weapon of defense or offense, nor to go or depart from his master’s ground without a certificate from his master, mistress or overseer.” Also “if any Negro or other slave shall presume to lift up his hand in opposition against any Christian, shall for every such offense, upon due proof thereof by the oath of the party before a magistrate, have and receive thirty lashes on his bare back, well laid on.” Also “if any Negro or other slave shall absent himself from his master’s service and lie hid and lurking in obscure places, committing injuries to the inhabitants, and shall resist any person or persons that shall by any lawful authority be employed to apprehend and take the said Negro, that then in case of such resistance it shall be lawful for such person or persons to kill the said Negro or slave so lying out and resisting.”
1691. “For prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by Negroes, Mulattoes and Indians intermarrying with English or other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another, Be it enacted … that for the time to come whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a Negro, Mulatto or Indian man or woman, bond or free, shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion for ever.” Also “if any English woman being free shall have a bastard child by any Negro or Mulatto, she pay the sum of fifteen pounds sterling”—a huge sum in those days—“within one month after such bastard child shall be born to the church wardens of the parish where she shall be delivered of such child, and in default of such payment she shall be taken into the possession of the said church wardens and disposed of [i.e. sold] for five years.” After this “the bastard child” would be “bound out as a servant by the said Church until he or she shall attain the age of thirty years.” Also “forasmuch as great inconveniences may happen to this country by the setting of Negroes and Mulattoes free, by their either entertaining Negro slaves from their master’s service, or receiving stolen goods, or being grown old bringing a charge upon the country; for prevention thereof Be it enacted … that no Negro or Mulatto be after the end of this present session of assembly set free by any person or persons whatsoever, unless such person or persons, their heirs, executors or administrators pay for the transportation of such Negro or Negroes out of the country within six months.”
1723. “When any Negro or mulatto shall be found upon due proof … to have given false testimony, every such offender shall, without further trial, have his ears successively nailed to the pillory for the space of an hour, and then cut off, and moreover receive thirty-nine lashes on his bare back.”
Some of the laws may have been prompted by recent incidents. For example, the one against the “abominable mixture” between the races followed a trial in the Lower Norfolk County court where it was established that “Mary Williamson hath committed the filthy sin of fornication with William, a Negro belonging to William Basnett, squire.” For this offense Mary was fined five hundred pounds of tobacco “for the use of Linhaven Parish.” As for William, who as well as committing the above outrage, “hath very arrogantly behaved himself in Linhaven Church in the face of the congregation,” the sheriff was to take him “into his custody and give him thirty lashes on his bare back.”
In 1730, the governor estimated Virginia’s population to be 114,000, of whom 30,000 were blacks—a dangerous ratio in the opinion of many. Writing to a friend in England, the aristocratic William Byrd worried about the “many bad consequences of multiplying these Ethiopians amongst us. They blow up the pride, and ruin the industry of our white people, who seeing a rank of poor creatures below them, detest work for fear it should make them look like slaves … Another unhappy effect of many Negroes is the necessity of being severe. Numbers make them insolent, and then foul means must do what fair will not. We have, however, nothing like the inhumanity that is practiced in the islands [West Indies] and God forbid we ever should. But these base tempers require to be ridden with a taut rein, or they will be apt to throw their rider … And in case there should arise a man of desperate courage” to act as a leader, there might well be an insurrection that would “tinge our rivers, as wide as they are, with blood.”
As it happened, there were no uprisings in colonial Virginia, but this did not mean that the slaves were reconciled to their lot. Rather than take up arms, they resorted to passive resistance. This took many forms: doing as little wo
rk as possible, as slowly as possible, and then doing it badly; breaking tools; driving cattle into bogs and swamps where they drowned and wagons into ruts that would break their wheels; getting drunk; pilfering; malingering and running away; feigning stupidity, and pretending not to understand orders, no matter how clearly given. “Nothing can be conceived more inert than a slave,” wrote William Strickland, an English visitor. “His unwilling labor is discovered in every step he takes; he moves not if he can avoid it; if the eyes of the overseer be off him, he sleeps; the ox and the horse, driven by the slave, appear to sleep also; all is listless inactivity; all motion is evidently compulsory.”
Passive resistance also offered the reward of infuriating masters, as in the case of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, owner of more than 500 slaves and 50,000 acres in various plantations. With no sense of irony, Landon Carter was a leader in the opposition to what he called the “tyrannic despotism” of George III. Like that misguided monarch, he was convinced that he was a benevolent and wise patriarch—“always generous and kind to those under me”—whose good deeds were all too often repaid with ingratitude. Here is his diary for just one month:
