Myths of American Slavery

by Walter Kennedy

  Such was the act, and such was one of its applications. Additional acts were passed in 1798 and 1802, but this portion was neither modified nor repealed.63

  As the history of New England proves, the whip was liberally applied by the people of Massachusetts both during and after slavery, and it was applied to white people as well as black people.

  In the early part of the nineteenth century, many Northern states, including Massachusetts, refused to honor the fugitive slave section of the United States Constitution. It was not unusual to hear Northerners refer to this section of the Constitution as a "Southern" section. Both in the past and in the present, people assume that this section of the Constitution was the brainchild of evil Southern slaveholders. Yet, the history of the Fugitive Slave Law will, again, demonstrate the hypocrisy and ignorance of many people in this regard.

  The fugitive slave section of the United States Constitution is patterned after the first Fugitive Slave Law, which was established in America by the United Colonies of New England. As Moore points out:

  The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England, 19th May, 1643, which commences with the famous recital of their object in coming in to those parts of America, viz., "to advaunce the Kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospell in puritie with peace," practically recognized the lawful existence of slavery.

  The fourth Article, which provides for the due adjustment of the expense or "charge of all just warrs whether offensive or defensive," concludes as follows:

  "And that according to their different charge of eich Jurisdiccon and plantacon, the whole advantage of the warr (if it please God to bless their Endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or PERSONS, shall be proportionably devided among the said Confederates." The same feature remained in the Constitution of the Confederacy to the end of its existence.

  The original of the Fugitive Slave Law provision in the Federal Constitution is to he traced to this Confederacy, in which Massachusetts was the ruling colony. The Commissioners of the United Colonies found occasion to complain to the Dutch Governor of New Netherlands, in 1646, of the fact that the Dutch agent at Hartford had harbored a fugitive Indian woman-slave, of whom they say in their letter: "Such a servant is parte of her master's estate, and a more considerable parte than a beast." A provision for the rendition of fugitives, etc., was afterwards made by treaty between the Dutch and the English.b4

  The unwillingness of the North to abide by the constitutional mandate set forth in the fugitive slave section of the Constitution will be discussed in the following chapter. But it should be clear by now, as long as the North needed slavery, it demanded obedience to the Fugitive Slave Law of its making.

  A fictional Southern slaveholder who routinely beats and then murders his slave is a common theme in Hollywood dramas. Human nature being what it is, no one should doubt that this type of activity was possible. Yet, in the history of Northern slavery, one can find a not-so-fictional account of a master murdering his slave. In 1639, a slave master from Hartford, Connecticut, is said to have killed his slave.6, We can only speculate just how long we must wait before Hollywood responds with a story line "poor innocent slave murdered by his evil Yankee slave master." Obvious, that story line does not comport with the modern stereotypical view of slavery in America. More to the point, it does not caress the anti-South cultural bigotry held by so many modern politically correct individuals.

  Several forms of "unfree" labor existed during the early days of the Northern colonies. As has been shown, slavery extended to more than just Africans. Native Americans, Africans, and the occasional white were all yoked for life to their master's will. In 1641, the General Court of Massachusetts condemned a white indentured servant to slavery for assaulting his master. Even white children were the objects of the "tender" mercy of the Massachusetts court when, in 1658, two white children were sold into slavery by order of the court.136 Although not routinely linked today, slavery was a major factor in the early life of the Puritan Fathers. Noting the extensive use of Negro slaves in Boston, Frenchman Antoine Court wrote, is not a house in Boston, however small may be its means, that has not one or two [African slaves]."67 Lorenzo Greene, chronicler of slavery in New England, notes that a registry of New England's aristocracy and Puritan slaveholders would be almost identical.

  A common complaint by Southerners before and after the War is that just because 6 percent of Southerners owned slaves, that should not indict the other 94 percent of non-slaveholding Southerners. Southerners also point to leaders such as Robert E. Lee and St. George Tucker, who were firm opponents of slavery. In his defense of the people of New England, Greene states that "most New England families had no connection with slavery."ss He goes on to point out notable leaders of New England such as John Adams who were vocal opponents of slavery. The question that begs to be asked is: "Why should we overlook New England's complicity in the system of slavery while condemning the South?"

  As has already been shown, New York and Massachusetts were early players in the system of slave labor, but they were not the only Northern colonies utilizing slave labor. In 1652 Rhode Island, following the lead of Massachusetts, enacted laws to protect a master's right in his slave property.69 By this date, all of New England had passed laws defining and defending the institution of slavery.

  A survey of the history of slavery in the North would not be complete without a look at the "cradle of liberty"-Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On the eve of the American War for Independence, Philadelphia was the largest city in British North America. For various reasons, historians have underreported the number of slaves and the impact of slavery in Pennsylvania in general and in Philadelphia in particular. Yet, with a little investigation one will discover the same pattern of slave employment in this Northern colony as is seen in the Southern colonies of North America.

  The prime factor in the employment of slaves in Pennsylvania was the need for a reliable labor force (does this sound familiar?). Although the genesis of African slavery in Pennsylvania is difficult to ascertain, three years after the Quaker founders established Philadelphia, a shipload of 150 Africans arrived in port. Now, did the pious "Friends" rush down to the port and demand liberation for their fellow man? Yes, the Quakers rushed to the port-rushed to buy a few good African slaves.70 So great was the demand for slaves that Nicholas More wrote to William Penn stating that most of the silver and gold that had been brought to the colony had been exchanged for the purchase of slaves.7' Again it must be pointed out that slavery existed in Pennsylvania for one reasonlabor. In the wilderness that was America, sufficient and reliable labor was needed to carve out a civilization and ultimately make prosperity possible. As long as the need for slavery existed, scruples against slavery, even when held by Quakers, could not stop the institution. Slavery was the "necessary" evil in the North just as it was to become in the South.

  The stream of slaves into Philadelphia ebbed and flowed in response to the availability of white laborers. Thus, we see two high points in the flow of slaves into Philadelphia. Around 1730, the stream of slaves into Philadelphia peaked and then slowly declined as the numbers of Scotch-Irish and German unfree laborers (i.e., indentured servants) increased.72 From the first peak in the importation of slaves into the colony, the number of slaves brought to the colony slowly decreased but never ceased. The second high point for the importation of slaves into the colony occurred in the year 1756.

  As a consequence of the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War), many indentured servants were conscripted into the British Arms', and unfree white laborers became a scarce commodity. The resulting decrease in the available white laborers stimulated a renewed interest in African labor and thus a second peak in the importation of slaves.73 The necessity of obtaining African slaves in 1756 was noted in a letter by Thomas Penn to William Peters. Peters stated that the decrease in the number of available indentured servants was forcing the people of the colony to "the necessity of providing themse
lves with negro slaves, as the property in them and their service seems at present more

  The second peak in importation of slaves took place at the very same time that the colonial abolition movement was well established. The efforts of the colonial abolitionists were an abject failure. Their failure had more to do with the severe decrease in an alternative labor supply than a lack of good arguments for the ending of slavery. To emphasize the point already made, as long as slavery was an econornic necessity, appeals to conscience were of little benefit in ending it.'' What was true for the North before the War for American Independence was also true for the South before the War for Southern Independence.

  The pressing need to secure labor was so strong that even pious men of the Quaker faith refused to follow the principles laid down by their religious leaders to refrain them from buying slaves. Even the boldest efforts by fellow Quakers and their leaders did not prevent members of that faith from utilizing slave labor. Only with the cessation of the Seven Years War and an increase in the supply of white laborers did the Quakers free themselves from the use of slave labor. The institution of slavery was so intrenched in and around Philadelphia that by 1751 more than six thousand slaves, or about one-half of the total number of slaves in Pennsylvania, were residents of the The Philadelphia tax assessor's report of 1767 (just nine years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence) demonstrates that almost 16 percent of the taxpayers of Philadelphia were slaveholders.77 By the year of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, there were between six hundred and seven hundred African slaves in the city.

  The story of the founding of the Confederate States of America is often accompanied by sketches of slaves toiling away in fields of cotton. The subliminal message is "Confederacy equals slavery." Yet, as has been shown, the very city where the Declaration of Independence was signed was one of the largest "slave" cities in the North. Moreover, every delegate who signed the Declaration of Independence was from a state that had a long and successful history of slavery. Nevertheless, no one calls the independence movement of America a "slaveholders"' rebellion.

  This brief review of the history of slavery in the North demonstrates four facts:

  1. Slavery was an important part in the early development of the Northern colonies. Both the existence of actual slaves working for Northern masters and the commercial ventures into the African slave trade made Northern prosperity more attainable.

  2. The evils normally associated with Southern slavery were just as prevalent within Northern slave society, such as: attempts at slave breeding, slave whippings, seeking fugitive slaves, or slave branding.

  3. Slavery existed for one major reason-labor. Early in the history of the Northern colonies, African slavery was instituted as an alternative to the lack of an adequate white labor force.

  4. As long as slavery was an economic necessity, its abolition was impossible-even among Quakers.

  In the history of slavery in America, one factor has been noted by many defenders of the South.711 In those areas of the nation where slavery was not as prevalent, the commerce in the African slave trade was very prominent. Also, in those areas of the nation where slavery was prevalent, the African slave trade was not very prominent. While it is easier to see the results of slavery in the South, the results of the North's participation in the institution of slavery and the slave trade should be of equal concern to all open- minded individuals.

  The scope of the practice of African slavery in the North can be gauged by the number of slaves in each Northern state in 1790. It should be noted that by this time the supply of free white laborers was more than adequate to meet the needs of the Northern states. As a result, a system of gradual emancipation was either in place or would soon be established. Nevertheless, a few slaves would be held in bondage in the North until the eve of the War for Southern Independence.

  *With the adoption of its 1780 constitution, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that slavery could not exist within the state. This judicial emancipation eliminated de jure slavery in the state; nevertheless, it remained as a de facto institution for several years, while many slaveholders sold their slave property.

  As a final look at the institution of slavery in the North, let us return to New England. In the year 1700, one of the earliest anti- slavery tracts appeared in Massachusetts. Judge Samuel Sewell wrote and circulated a tract titled "The Selling of Joseph, a Memorial." This work, according to historian George H. Moore, was received with "amazement and wonder, not unmingled with sorrow and contempt."74

  The tract used biblical imagery and language to assert that slavery could not be condoned by Christians. This tract has been alluded to by those who would declare slavery as a sin. Yet, Judge Sewell's words were not well received when first published. Many a student of American history has been virtually brought to tears as a result of the story of slavery as told by Judge Sewell.s° Nevertheless, very few history teachers have taken the time to tell the story of Judge John Saffin's reply to "The Selling of Joseph, a Memorial." In 1701 Judge Saffin, a slaveholder of Massachusetts and a member of the same court as Judge Sewell, wrote the following reply which was titled, "A Brief and Candid Answer to a late Printed Sheet, Entitled, The Selling of Joseph." Once again it must be pointed out that this Northern defense of the biblical view of slavery is not being reprinted as a defense of slavery. The point being made is that these views were held by Americans both in the North as well as in the South and that as long as slavery or the slave trade was deemed necessary for the advancement of the society, opposition-biblical or otherwise-was ineffectual. While defending the view that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible, Judge Saffin made several points that would reassert themselves throughout the first two hundred years of American history: (1) Because of the prejudice of color, white laborers were preferred to black laborers. The same reasoning on this subject was expressed by John Adams of Massachusetts sixty years later. (2) It is not moral to demand someone to free his slave at the cost of losing the price of that slave (something the people of Massachusetts conveniently forgot after they sold their slaves to Southerners). (3) Once freed, the "Negroes must be sent out of the Here we see a Northerner making the argument of how difficult it would be to have a free black underclass within a white society. This is the same problem that had to be faced any time abolition of slavery was considered in nineteenth-century America-North or South. After we have reviewed the statements of Judge Saffin of Massachusetts, Dr. N. L. Rice of Ohio, Bishop John H. Hopkins of Vermont, and Dr. R. L. Dabney of Virginia, it will become apparent that each man made the same point-that slavery was not sinful and that it was difficult to abolish.

  While Judge Sewell's tract denouncing slavery as a sinful act is often cited and published, judge Saffin's reply is seldom seen. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, judge Saffin's reply will be reprinted, in full, below. Unlike our detractors, we will provide you with both sides of this argument. Judge Sewell's tract can be found in the appendix of this book.

  Judge Saffin's Reply to judge Sewell, 1701

  THAT Honourable and Learned Gentleman, the Author of a Sheet, Entituled, The Selling 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 were there no other.

  To speak a little to the Gentleman's first Assertion: That none ought to part with their Liberty themselves, or deprive others o
f 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 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 Monarchs, Kings, Princes and Governors, Masters and Commanders, others to be Subjects, and to be Commanded; Servants of sundry forts and degrees, bound to obey; yea, some to he born Slaves, and 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.