# Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts/Chapter 8

VIII.
We return again to trace the progress of public opinion on slavery in Massachusetts during the Revolution. It is indicated in part by the public press of the time. William Gordon, afterward well known as the author of a history of the Revolution, was very busy as a writer on this and kindred topics. In Letter V (of a series), dated Roxbury, September 21, 1776, he says:
"The Virginians begin their Declaration of Rights with saying, 'that all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive themselves or their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty.' The Congress declare that they 'hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.' The Continent has rang with affirmations of the like import. If these, Gentlemen, are our genuine sentiments, and we are not provoking the Deity, by acting hypocritically to serve a turn, let us apply earnestly and heartily to the extirpation of slavery from among ourselves. Let the State allow of nothing beyond servi​tude for a stipulated number of years, and that only for seven or eight, when persons are of age, or till they are of age: and let the descendants of the Africans born among us, be viewed as free-born; and be wholly at their own disposal when one-and-twenty, the latter part of which age will compensate for the expense of infancy, education, and so on."
In the Independent Chronicle, November 14, 1776, there is a Plan for the gradual extermination of slavery out of the Colony of Connecticut. It was sent to the publifhers by Dr. Gordon, from Roxbury, Nov. 2, 1776. This plan is very severe on slaveholders, and portraying the death-bed scene of one of them, raises the query, whether he is sinner or saint? Gordon himself says, "I shall say nothing further of the plan, than that, tho' I am well pleased, to have the absurdity of perpetuating slavery exposed, I am not for unsainting every man that through the power of prevailing prejudice and custom, is chargeable with inconsistency and absurdity: for if so, who then can be saved?"
A "Son of Liberty" writes vigorously against slavery in the Independent Chronicle, November 28, 1776. He calls loudly for legislation, etc., "that no laws be in existence contrary to found reason and revelation."
At this period, advertisements of slave-property were common in the newspapers. We quote a few specimens:
From the Independent Chronicle, October 3, 1776.
"To be SOLD A stout, hearty, likely Negro Girl, fit for either Town or Country. Inquire of Mr. Andrew Gullespie, Dorchester; Octo. 1. 1776."
From the same, October 10.
"A hearty Negro Man, with a small sum of Money to be given away."
From the same, November 28.
"To Sell—A Hearty likely Negro Wench about 12 or 13 Years of Age, has had the Small Pox, can wash, iron, card, and spin, etc., for no other Fault but for want of Employ."
From the same, February 27, 1777.
"WANTED a Negro Girl between 12 and 20 Years of Age, for which a good Price will be given, if she can be recommended."
From the Continental Journal, April 3, 1777.
"To be SOLD, a likely Negro Man, twenty-two years old, has had the small-pox, can do any sort of business; sold for want of employment."
"To be SOLD, a large, commodious Dwelling House, Barn, and Outhouses, with any quantity of land from 1 to 50 acres, as the Purchaser shall choose within 5 miles of Boston. Alfo a smart well-tempered Negro Boy of 14 years old, not to go out of this State and sold for 15 years only, if he continues to behave well."
From the Independent Chronicle, May 8, 1777.
"To be SOLD, for want of employ, a likely strong Negro Girl, about 18 years old, understands all sorts of household business, and can be well recommended."
Mr. Gordon's Hint on Slavery.
Independent Chronicle, May 15, 1777.
"Messieurs Printers,
"I would hope that you are the Sons of Liberty from principle, and not merely from interest, wish you therefore to be consistent, and never more to admit the sale of negroes, whether boys or girls, to be advertised in your papers. Such advertifsments in the present season are peculiarly shocking. The multiplicity of business that hath been before the General Court may apologize for their not having attended to the case of slaves, but it is to be hoped that they will have an opportunity hereafter, and will, by an Act of the State, put a final stop to the public and private sale of them, which may be some help towards eradicating slavery from among us. If God hath made of one blood, all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, I can fee no reason why a black rather than a white man should be a slave.
"Your humble Servant, "William Gordon.
"N. B. I mean the above as a hint also to theother printers."
But although the Boston newspapers still continued to advertise slave-property, and, as we shall hereafter ​see, in a manner even more shocking to the modern reader, it is to this period we are to refer the last attempt in the Legislature to put an end to slavery in Massachusetts. It is the most emphatic, if indeed it is not the only direct, attack made on that institution in all their legislation. The Legislature were also at this time beginning their first essay at constitution-making—the establishment of a new system of government for the State. The failure of this attack on slavery was as signal and complete as possible, while the method by which it was accomplished presents a curious illustration of the growth of the sentiment and principle of nationality. It is not amiss to remember, that in the first and last and only direct and formal attempt to abolish slavery in Massachusetts, the popular branch of the Legislature of that State laid the bill for that purpose on the table, with a direction "that application be made to Congress on the subject thereof."
On the 18th of March, 1777, another petition of Massachusetts slaves was presented to the Legislature, as appears from the following entry on the Journal of that date:
"A petition of Lancaster Hill, and a number of other negroes, praying the Court to take into consideration their state of bondage, and pass an act whereby they may be restored to the enjoyment of that freedom which is the natural right of all men. Read and committed to Judge Sergeant, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Appleton, Col. Brooks, and Mr. Story."
The original petition is preserved among the Archives of Massachusetts, and furnishes some addi​tional interesting particulars. They pray for the passage of an act, "whereby they may be restored to the enjoyment of that freedom, which is the natural right of all men, and their children (who were born in this land of liberty) may not be held as slaves after they arrive at the age of twenty-one years." The petition is signed by Lancaster Hill, Peter Bess, Brister Slensen, Prince Hall, Jack Pierpont (his × mark), Nero Funelo (his × mark), and Newport Sumner (his × mark). It bears date January 13th, 1777, and has the following endorsement: "Mar. 18. Judge Sergeant, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Appleton, Coll. Brooks, Mr. Story, Mr. Lowell and to confider y$^e$ matter at large Mr. Davis." Mass. Archives, Revolutionary Resolves, Vol. VII., p. 132.
The addition of "Mr. Lowell and to confider y$^e$ matter at large Mr. Davis" indicates further proceedings, which we are unable to give, in consequence of the deficiencies in all the copies of the Journals known to us. The action of the Legislature, however, resulted in a bill, which was probably drawn by Judge Sargent, who was the first named of this committee.
On Monday afternoon, June 9th, 1777, "a Bill entitled an Act for preventing the Practice of holding persons in Slavery" was "read a first time, and ordered to be read again on Friday next, at 10 o’clock, A.M." Journ., 19. On the 13th, the bill was "read a second time, and after Debate thereon, it was moved and seconded, That the same lie upon the Table, and that Application be made to Congress on the subject thereof; and the Question being put, it passed in the Affirmative, and Mr. Speaker, Mr. ​Wendell, and Col. Orne, were appointed a Committee to prepare a letter to Congress accordingly, and report." Journ., 25. On the following day, Saturday, June 14th, "the Committee appointed to prepare a Letter to Congress, on the subject of the Bill for preventing the Practice of holding Persons in Slavery, reported." Their report was "Read and Ordered to lie.' Journ., 25. We find no further trace of it.
"State of Massachusetts Bay. In the Year of our Lord, 1777.
"An act for preventing the practice of holding persons in Slavery.
"Whereas, the practice of holding Africans and the children born of them, or any other persons, in Slavery, is unjustifiable in a civil government, at a time when they are asserting their natural freedom; wherefore, for preventing such a practice for the future, and establishing to every person residing within the State the invaluable blessing of liberty.
"Be it Enacted, by the Council and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same,—That all persons, whether black or of other complexion, above 21 years of age, now held in Slavery, shall, from and after the day of next, be free from any subjection to any master or mistress, who have claimed their servitude by right of purchase, heirship, free gift, or otherwise, and they are hereby entitled to all the freedom, rights, privileges and immunities that do, or ought of right to belong to any of the subjects of this State, any usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.
"And be it Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all written deeds, bargains, sales or conveyances, or contracts without writing, whatsoever, for conveying or transferring any property in any person, or to the service and labor of any person whatsoever, of more than twenty-one years of age, to a third person, except by order of some court of record for some crime, that has been, or hereafter shall be made, or by their own voluntary contract for a term not exceeding seven years, shall be and hereby are declared null and void.
"And whereas, divers persons now have in their service negroes, ​mulattoes or others who have been deemed their slaves or property, and who are now incapable of earning their living by reason of age or infirmities, and may be desirous of continuing in the service of their masters or mistresses,—be it therefore Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that whatever negro or mulatto, who shall be desirous of continuing in the service of his master or mistress, and shall voluntarily declare the same before two justices of the County in which said master or mistress resides, shall have a right to continue in the service, and to a maintenance from their master or mistress, and if they are incapable of earning their living, shall be supported by the said master or mistress, or their heirs, during the lives of said servants, anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Provided, nevertheless, that nothing in this act shall be understood to prevent any matter of a vessel or other person from bringing into this State any persons, not Africans, from any other part of the world, except the United States of America, and felling their service for a term of time not exceeding five years, if twenty-one years of age, or, if under twenty-one, not exceeding the time when he or she so brought into the State shall be twenty-six years of age, to pay for and in consideration of the transportation and other charges said master of vessel or other person may have been at, agreeable to contracts made with the persons so transported, or their parents or guardians in their behalf, before they are brought from their own country." Mass. Archives: Revolutionary Resolves, Vol. vii., p. 133.
An endorsement on the bill is, "Ordered to lie till the second Wednesday of the next Session of the General Court." It was not taken up at that time, nor at any other time that we can discover.
We have said that Judge Sargent was probably the author of this bill. He was a very strong advocate of anti-slavery doctrines, and subsequently, in his career as a Judge of the Supreme Court, had a principal agency in accomplishing the overthrow of slavery by judicial construction, without the aid of legislation in which he had failed.
​There is among the archives of Massachusetts the following draft of a bill, evidently the original of the preceding act, which appears to have been written by Judge Sargent on the back of a note addressed to him by Rev. Dr. Eliot, an eminent minister of Boston who took a very prominent part in the patriotic proceedings of the Revolutionary period.
"In y$^e$ year of our Lord 1777.
"An Act for preventing y$^e$ wicked & unnatural Practice of holding Persons in Slavery.
"Whereas y$^e$ unnatural practice in this state of holding certain Persons in Slavery, more particularly those transported from Africa & y$^e$ children born of such persons, is contrary to y$^e$ laws of Nature, a scandal to prosessors of y$^e$ Religion of Jesus, & a disgrace to all good Governments, more especially to such who are struggling against Oppression & in favour of y$^e$ natural & unalienable Rights of human nature—
"Wherefore in some measure to secure the blessings of freedom to such who shall be hereafter born within this State—
"Be it Enacted by y$^e$ Council & House of Representatives in general court assembled & by y$^e$ authority of y$^e$ same that all persons who shall be born within y$^e$ limits of this state from & after y$^e$ day of next whether their parents be black or white, or esteemed Bond or free, of whatsoever nation, People or condition, such persons born as afores'd fhall be & hereby are intitled to all y$^e$ freedom, Rights, Liberties, privileges & immunities that do or of right ought to belong unto free & natural born subjects of this State, any usage or custom to y$^e$ contrary notwithstanding—
"And for y$^e$ effectual preventing of y$^e$ unnatural practice of selling promiscuously and transferring a property in our fellow creatures, disgraceful to human nature, & a scandal to professing christians—Therefore Be it Enacted by y$^e$ authority aforesaid that all bargains, sales, conveyances & other writings or contract without writing whatsoever for y$^e$ conveying or transferring of any property in our fellow creatures or of y$^e$ labour or service of any persons whatsoever of more than ​twenty-one years of age to a third person other than of such person who shall voluntarily make himself a party to such Instruments or writings or where he shall be subjected to such sale, or service by virtue of y$^e$ order of some court of Record, made after y$^e$ day of next shall be null & void to all intents, constructions & purposes whatsoever, any Law, Usage or custom to y$^e$ contrary in any wise notwithstanding." Mass. Archives: Vol. 142, 58.
On the 11th of September, 1777, a petition was read in the House of Representatives, from the selectmen of the town of Woburn, praying an abatement of their quota of men for the Continental Army, for Slaves, Idiots, Insane, Captives, &c., and those under age. The petitioners had leave to withdraw their petition.
A trace of the exercise of private judgment and one phase of public opinion soon afterwards, on this subject, may be seen in the following extract from the Journal of the House of Representatives, 24th September, 1777:
"A Petition of Joseph Prout of Scarborough, setting forth that Mr. William Vaughan lately told his two Negroes that by an Act of Court all Negroes were made free, in consequence whereof they have since left him, and one of them has hired himself to said Vaughan, who withholds him from the Petitioner, therefore praying relief. Read and dismissed." p. 86.
As the efforts towards the formation of a State Constitution gradually strengthened and took shape, the subject of slavery and the status of the negro came up again and again. There was a conflict of opinions and interests, and the newspapers of the day bear witness to its progress. The friends of the negro did ​not by any means have it all their own way. The muses were invoked on both sides. In the Independent Chronicle of the 29th Jan., 1778, nearly a column of the paper is occupied with about one hundred lines of verse ridiculing negro equality, which was responded to by another production in verse in the paper of the 12th February. This brought out a rejoinder, also in verse, in the following week, Feb. 19th, 1778.
The discussion was not confined to these poetical champions. As early as the 8th of January, 1778, Doctor Gordon took up one phase of the business with an article in the Independent Chronicle, in which he said:
"Would it not be ridiculous, inconsistent and unjust, to exclude freemen from voting for representatives and senators, though otherwise qualified, because their skins are black, tawny or reddish? Why not disqualified for being long-nosed, short-faced, or higher or lower than five feet nine? A black, tawny or reddish skin is not so unfavorable an hue to the genuine son of liberty, as a tory complection. Has any other State disqualified freemen for the color of their skin? I do not recollect any; and if not, the disqualification militates with the proposal in the Confederation, that the free inhabitants of each State shall, upon removing into any other State, enjoy all the privileges and immunities belonging to the free citizens of such State."
With regard to the proceedings of the Legislature-Convention of 1777–1778, little is known; but the draft of a Constitution was prepared, which was debated at length, approved by the Convention, presented to the Legislature, and submitted to the people, ​by whom it was rejected. Barry: History of Mass., II., 175.
We have been fortunate enough to recover a fragment of the debates in the Convention, which bears on our subject. It shows that there was a continued contest in that body between those who supported and those who opposed negro equality, in which the latter carried the day; and also that it was after debate—not unconsciously or without notice—that a majority of the Legislature of Massachusetts, specially instructed to frame the organic law for the new State, deliberately, in the year 1778, excluded negroes, Indians, and mulattoes from the rights of citizenship.
From the Independent Chronicle, September 23, 1779.
Mr. Willis.
Please to insert the following in your Independent Chronicle, and you will oblige the publick's friend and humble servant,
John Bacon.
Stockbridge, Sept. 10, 1779.
"Open thy mouth, judge righteously, plead the cause of the poor and needy."—King Solomon.
The substance of a speech delivered in the late Convention, on a motion being made for reconsidering a vote, by which this clause, "except Negroes, Indians and Mulattoes," in the twenty-third article of the report of the Committee, was inserted.
Mr. President:—As I have from the beginning of these debates been opposed to that clause, the erasure of which has now been moved for, I beg leave briefly to lay the reasons of my opposition before this honorable Convention.
In the first place, Mr. President, by retaining this clause in our Constitution, we make ourselves singular, or nearly so. No Constitution on the Continent, one only excepted, bears the least complexion of this kind. Say the honorable and patriotick Convention of Pennsylvania, in their Bill of Rights, Art. 7: "all free men having a suffi​cient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or be elected into office." The constitutions in general which have been formed of late through the Continent, breathe a like consistent and genuine spirit of liberty. But be this as it may, Sir, whether we hereby make ourselves singular or not, I have other reasons to offer for being in favor of the motion. By holding up this clause in our constitution, we sap the foundation of that liberty which we are now defending at the expense of all that blood and treasure which we so liberally part with in the prosecution of the present war with Great Britain; by holding up this clause, we contradict the fundamental principle on which we engaged in our present opposition to that power. The principle on which we engaged in this opposition, Sir, I take to be this, that representation and taxation are reciprocal,—that we, not being represented in the Parliament of Great Britain, Parliament had no right to tax us without our consent. When the Parliament of Great Britain assumed this power and plead the charter of this (then) Province to justify their claim, we in our turn, not only plead the same charter in opposition to such claim, but even contended, that on supposition the charter gave them this power, yet it was a power so inconsistent with the essential natural rights of men, that no contract whatever could, in such cafe, bind us. On this principle, Sir, we engaged in the present war,—on this principle we suppose ourselves justified in resisting, even to blood, that power which would thus arbitrarily exact upon us; and on the same principle, I conceive, the persons excepted in the clause now before the Convention, would be justified in making the fame opposition against us which we are making against Great Britain: If not, Mr. President, let any gentleman point out the difference between the two cases; no essential difference has yet been pointed out by any gentleman who has spoke to the question, and no such difference, I presume, does in fact exist.
But I am apprised of an objection that is made by gentlemen on the opposite side. They say, "that by being protected by our laws (without any share in the representation) they secure benefits which are fully equivalent to the tax which we lay upon them." This, Sir, is the very argument by which Great Britain pretend to support their claim of taxing us; and I confess, Sir, it appears to me, in every view, as fully to justify their pretensions with respect to us, as it does ours with respect to those persons who are the subject of the present debate. So ​that, by retaining this clause in our constitution, we bring ourselves into this unhappy dilemma, that either in one case or the other, we must, out of our own mouth, and by our own conduct, be condemned. So far as we can justify our conduct in our present opposition to Great Britain, so far it must be condemned as it relates to those who are mentioned in the article now before us and vice versa. But this is not all, Mr. President; Who are to set a value on the privileges which these people enjoy under our government? Do we allow them a voice in the contract? By no means. We set a price upon our own commodity, and oblige them to give it whether they will or not; and this, not as to the luxuries of life, not as to the necessaries of life only, but even life itself. And if we may take upon us, without their consent, to set a value upon those benefits which they receive from our laws, and make them pay accordingly, we may, on the same principle, set these benefits at a higher or lower price, and so tax them in a greater or less proportion according to our own sovereign pleasure. According to our own avowed principles, if we may take from them one farthing in this way, we may by the fame rule, take from them every farthing they possess. Nay more, we may subject them to perpetual servitude, as being no more than a just compensation for the benefit they receive in having their lives protected by our laws; and if this is not to establish slavery by a constitution, the foundations of which, it is pretended, are laid in the most extensive principles of liberty, I consess, Sir, I am utterly ignorant of what the terms liberty and slavery mean.
But it is further urged by gentlemen on the opposite side, "that the case now before the Convention is widely different from that between us and Great Britain,—that Great Britain assume a right to impose taxes on us of which they pay no part themselves,—that the more they lay upon us, the less they have to pay themselves,—that hence there is to them a strong inducement to bear us down by exorbitant taxation; whereas we, in taxing these people, tax ourselves at the same time." But who, Mr. President, perceives not the futility and deceit of this argument? If we are to tax them, not as members of our community, but as receiving particular benefits from our laws, what security can they have that we shall not multiply taxes upon them in proportion to the value which our caprice or covetousness may set upon these supposed benefits. And whether we tax ourselves at the same time that we tax them, or not, is wholly immaterial: They are ​to be taxed on quite a different footing from that on which we are taxed ourselves; yea, as persons who do not belong to our community, and the more we lay upon them, the less we shall certainly have to pay ourselves.
But it is still further urged by gentlemen on the other side, "that these persons are foreigners, and therefore not intitled to a voice in legislation."
But how does this appear, Mr. President? What, unless it be their color, constitutes them foreigners? Are they not Americans? Were they not (most of them at least) born in this country? Is it not a fact, that those who are not natives of America, were forced here by us, contrary, not only to their own wills, but to every principle of justice and humanity? I wish, Sir, these gentlemen would tell us what they mean by foreigners. Do they mean by it, such persons, whose ancestors came from some other country? If so, who of us is not a foreigner? Or do they mean to include under the denomination of foreigners, all those who are not born in this State, how long soever they may have lived among us, whatever property they may have acquired, whatever connexions they may have formed, or however they may have been incorporated with us by our present laws and constitution? These people, Sir, by our present constitution, are intitled to the same privileges with any of their fellow-subjects; and by what authority we are now to wrest these rights and privileges from them, I cannot conceive, unless by dint of mere power. And I hope, Sir, that right, as founded in mere power, is not to receive a sanction from our constitution.
But there is one argument more which has been urged by gentlemen on the opposite side, as being of great weight and importance, which is this, "That by erasing this clause out of the constitution, we shall greatly offend and alarm the Southern States." Should this be the case, Sir, it would be surprising indeed! But can it be supposed, Mr. President, that any of the sister States will be offended with us, because we don't see fit to do that which they themselves have not done? Nay, more, will they be offended or alarmed that we do not violate those essential rights of human nature which they have taken the most effectual care to establish and secure? It will not bear a supposition; the argument, Sir, is most ridiculous and absurd.
In fine, Sir, I hope we shall not be so inconsistent with ourselves, ​so destitute of all regard to common justice and the natural rights of men, as to suffer this form of constitution to go abroad with this exceptionable clause; I hope the motion will obtain, and the clause be reprobated by the Convention. But should this not be the case, should it eventually appear that there is so great a want of virtue within these walls, I still hope there will be found among the people at large, virtue enough to trample under foot a form of government which thus saps the foundation of civil liberty, and tramples on the rights of men.
We have already intimated that these liberal and enlightened views did not prevail. On the contrary, the "Constitution and Form of Government for the State of Massachusetts Bay, agreed upon by the Convention of said State, February 28, 1778, to be laid before the several towns and Plantations in said State, for their Approbation or Disapprobation," has the following article:
"V. Every male inhabitant of any town in this State, being free, and twenty-one years of age, excepting Negroes, Indians and molattoes, shall be intitled to vote for a Representative or Representatives, as the case may be. . . . ," etc.
This not only excludes Negroes, Indians, and Molattoes from the chief right of citizenship, but also recognizes the existence of slavery in the State; and although it was rejected by an overwhelming vote, we have seen no evidence that this feature of the instrument elicited such opposition as might be expected in a community already prepared for negro emancipation and enfranchisement. In the famous Essex Refult, the ablest document on the subject now to be found—​an elaborate report, written by Theophilus Parsons, of a Committee appointed by the Ipswich Convention for the express purpose of stating the non-conformity of this Constitution to the true principles of government applicable to the territory of the Massachusetts Bay—the fifth article is not referred to; and the existence of slavery, although earnestly deprecated, is clearly recognized, as well as the impracticability of immediate emancipation.
"The opinions and consent of the majority must be collected from persons, delegated by every freeman of the State for that purpose. Every freeman who hath sufficient discretion should have a voice in the election of his legislators. . . . All the members of the State are qualified to make the election, unless they have not sufficient discretion, or are so situated as to have no wills of their own. Persons not twenty-one years old are deemed of the former class. . . . Women also. . . . Slaves are of the latter class and have no wills. But are slaves members of a free government? We feel the absurdity, and would to God, the situation of America and the tempers of its inhabitants were such, that the slaveholder could not be found in the land." Result of the Convention, etc., pp. 28, 29.
Dr. Gordon continued his zealous championship of the colored races, and in one of his letters on the proposed Constitution attacked this Fifth Article in a most pungent style of opposition. Gordon's rela​tions with the Legislature had been most intimate, as Chaplain to both Houses, and he well knew how reluctantly the partisans of slavery were giving ground. We quote the passages referred to:
"The complexion of the 5th Article is blacker than that of any African; and if not altered, will be an everlasting reproach upon the present inhabitants; and evidence to the world, that they mean their own rights only, and not those of mankind, in their cry for liberty. I remember not, that any State have been so inconsistent as to declare in their Constitution, however they may practice, that a freeman shall not have the right of voting, merely because of his being a Negro, an Indian, or a Molatto. I am sorry the Convention did not take the hint when given in time, and avoid this public scandal. It hath been argued, that were Negroes admitted to vote, the Southern States would be offended, and we should be soon crowded with them from thence. This would be to suppose the Southern States as weak as the argument. Will not the Negroes be as likely to crowd into the State, if they may be free, though they are debarred the right of voting? Will any be so hardy as to fly in the face of all the declarations through the Continent, and assert that the Negroes are made to be, and are fit for nothing but slaves? Let such know, that in Jamaica, there are a number of free Negroes, who, resenting the tyranny of their masters, freed themselves from slavery, and continued in a state of war for several years, till at length King George the IId., by letters patent, empowered two gentlemen to conclude a treaty of peace and friendship with them, which was ​done on the 1st of March, 1739, wherein they had their liberties confirmed. The exception of Indians is still more odious, their ancestors having been formerly proprietors of the country. As to Molattoes they should have been defined. We should have been told, whether it intended the offspring of a white and Negro, or also of a white and Indian; and whether the immediate offspring alone, or any of their remote descendants, so that the blood of a white being intermixed with that of a Negro or Indian, it should be contaminated to the latest posterity, and cut off the male offspring to the hundredth generation, from the right of voting in an election.
"Gentlemen, blot out the exception, and thereby wipe off from the country in general, the disgrace that has been brought upon it by the Convention in particular. If any are afraid, that the Bay inhabitants will, in consequence of it, at some distant period, become Negroes, Indians or Molattoes, let the General Court guard against it by future Acts of State."
Dr. Gordon had already become very obnoxious to the members of the Legislature, and was summarily dismissed from his office of Chaplain to both Houses, April 4th–6th, 1778, in consequence of his Letter I, published in the Independent Chronicle, April 2d, 1778, in which he was said to have "rashly reflected upon the General Court," and "misrepresented their conduct," etc.
In Boston, the subject of slavery became the source of angry contention, which grew into public disorder and riots. Thomas Kench, in Col. Craft's Regiment of Artillery, then on Castle Island, had applied to the ​Legislature for leave to raise a detachment of negroes for military service. This was on the third of April, 1778. On the seventh of the same month he addressed a second letter to the Council, as follows:
"The letter I wrote before I heard of the disturbance with Col. Seares, Mr. Spear, and a number of other gentlemen, concerning the freedom of negroes, in Congress Street. It is a pity that riots should be committed on the occasion, as it is justifiable that negroes should have their freedom, and none amongst us be held as slaves, as freedom and liberty is the grand controversy that we are contending for; and I trust, under the smiles of Divine Providence we shall obtain it, if all our minds can but be united; and putting the negroes into the service will prevent much uneasiness, and give more satisfaction to those that are offended at the thoughts of their servants being free.
"I will not enlarge, for fear I should give offence; but subscribe myself," &c. Mass. Arch., Vol. 199, 80, 84.
The proposed Constitution failed to pass the ordeal of the popular judgment, so far as an opinion could be gathered from the very partial returns made of the votes. A hundred and twenty towns neglected to express any opinion at all; and but twelve thousand persons, out of the whole State, went to the polls to answer in any way. Two-sixths of them, however, voted in the negative. Adams's Works: IV., 214. Thus the Constitution was rejected, negro clause and all sharing the same fate. We have no means of ascertaining the exact state of parties on this subject; but there can be no doubt that there was a wide difference of opinions among the people.
​From the proceedings of the town of Boston, it does not appear that the citizens of that place objected to the negro exclusion, although they were unanimous against the constitution. In Cambridge it was voted down unanimously, all the voters present being Freemen, more than 21 years of age, and neither "a Negro, Indian or Molatto." Independent Chronicle: June 4, 1778.
On the contrary, the town of Dartmouth notes the inconsistency of excluding the negroes, &c., and favors their equal recognition, but at the fame time assures the public that there is no Negro, Indian or Molatto among their voters. Continental Journal, June, 1778.
It is not by any means well ascertained at what period, if ever, the negro was placed on the footing of political equality with the white man in Massachusetts. Public opinion has been justly characterized as a power often quite as strong as the law itself. At once the great Ruler, Lawgiver, and Judge of the Anglo-Saxon race, it has held its throne and feat of judgment nowhere more firmly than in Massachusetts. The slave was "emancipated by the force o public opinion;" and the fame authority, without the absolute declaration and forms of law, continued to exclude the negro from actual practical equality of civil and political as well as social rights.
A "petition of several poor negroes and mulattoes," who were inhabitants of the town of Dartmouth, dated at that place on the 10th of February, 1780, shows the condition they were in at that time. They humbly represent:
"That we being chiefly of the African extract, and ​by reason of long bondage and hard slavery, we have been deprived of enjoying the profits of our labor or the advantage of inheriting estates from our parents, as our neighbors the white people do, having some of us not long enjoyed our own freedom; yet of late, contrary to the invariable custom and practice of the country, we have been, and now are, taxed both in our polls and that small pittance of estate which, through much hard labor and industry, we have got together to sustain ourselves and families withall. We apprehend it, therefore, to be hard usage, and will doubtless (if continued) reduce us to a state of beggary, whereby we shall become a burthen to others, if not timely prevented by the interposition of your justice and power.
"Your petitioners further show, that we apprehend ourselves to be aggrieved, in that, while we are not allowed the privilege of freemen of the State, having no vote or influence in the election of those that tax us, yet many of our color (as is well known) have cheerfully entered the field of battle in the defence of the common cause, and that (as we conceive) against a similar exertion of power (in regard to taxation), too well known to need a recital in this place.
"We most humbly request, therefore, that you would take our unhappy case into your serious consideration, and, in your wisdom and power, grant us relief from taxation, while under our present depressed circumstances," &c.
This petition was addressed "to the Honorable Council and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, for the State of Massachusetts Bay, ​in New England." The loss or imperfections of the journals of this period prevent us from knowing what, if any, action was had on this petition, but a memorandum in the handwriting of the leading petitioner, on the copy from which the above was taken, tells the story:
"This is the copy of the petition which we did deliver unto the Honorable Council and House, for relief from taxation in the days of our distress. But we received none.John Cuffe."
Another copy of the petition was found, with the date, "January 22d, 1781," not signed, by which it would appear that they intended to renew their application to the government for relief.
The records of the town of Dartmouth also show that these colored inhabitants resisted the payment of taxes, and the 22d of April, 1781, they applied to the selectmen of the town, "to put a stroke in their next warrant for calling a town-meeting, so that it may legally he laid before said town, by way of vote, to know the mind of said town, whether all free negroes and mulattoes shall have the same privileges in this said town of Dartmouth as the white people have, respecting places of profit, choosing of officers, and the like, together with all other privileges in all cases that shall or may happen or be brought in this our said Town of Dartmouth." Nell's Colored Patriots of the Revolution, pp. 87–90.
It has been stated that these proceedings resulted in establishing the right of the colored man to the elective franchise in Massachusetts, and that a law was enacted by the legislature granting him all the privi​leges belonging to other citizens. Ibid., pp. 90, 77. But we can find no evidence to corroborate this statement, which is also entirely inconsistent with subsequent legislation.
As late as 1795, the political status of the negro in Massachusetts was by no means definitely determined. Dr. Belknap gave, as the result of his inquiries on the subject, the statement that they were "equally under the protection of the laws as other people. Some gentlemen (says he) whom I have consulted, are of opinion, that they cannot elect, nor be elected, to the offices of government; others are of a different opinion." Mr. Thomas Pemberton was one of the persons referred to by Dr. Belknap, and in his letter of March 12, 1795, says expressly that "the qualifications required by the Massachusetts Constitution prevents the people of colour from their being electors or elected to any public office."
Dr. Belknap continues, "For my own part, I see nothing in the constitution which disqualifies them either from electing or being elected, if they have the other qualifications required; which may be obtained by blacks as well as by whites. Some of them certainly do vote in the choice of officers for the state and federal governments, and no person has appeared to contest their right. Instances of the election of a black to any publick office are very rare. I knew of but one, and he was a town-clerk in one of our country towns. He was a man of good sense and morals, and had a school education. If I remember right, one of his parents was black and the other either a white or mulatto. He is now dead." M. H. S. Coll., I., iv., 208.
​The question must have been regarded as of little practical importance, for the relative number of negroes was small; and of those all but a very insignificant fraction were excluded by the property qualification. Had it been regarded with interest enough to call for an authoritative decision, there is little room for doubt what it would have been.
IX.
We come now to the Constitution of 1780, the instrument by which it is alleged that slavery was abolished in Massachusetts. In the illustration of our subject, its history is very important, and demands careful and accurate criticism.
After the failure of the attempt in 1778, a convention of delegates chosen for the purpose was decided upon to form a constitution of government. They were elected in the summer of 1779, and met at Cambridge on the 1st of September of that year. On the 3d they resolved to prepare a Declaration of Rights of the people of the Massachusetts Bay, and also to proceed to the framing a new Constitution of Government. On the next day, Sept. 4th, a Committee of thirty persons was chosen to prepare a Declaration of Rights and the form of a Constitution. On the 6th September, the Convention adjourned until the 28th October, for the purpose of giving the Committee time to prepare a report. Immediately upon the adjournment, the General Committee met in Boston, and delegated the duty of preparing a draught of a
* ↑ The methods proposed in this letter do not give any countenance to the modern theories that slavery was illegal, and that hereditary slavery was always contrary to law in Massachusetts.
* ↑ The remainder of the section relates to residence and property qualifications, etc.
* ↑ Letter No. II., to the Freemen of the Massachusetts Bay, dated Roxbury, April 2d, 1778, published in the Continental Journal, April 9th, 1778.