# Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts/Chapter 5

V.
But the humane efforts of Roger Williams and John Eliot to abate the severity of judgment against captives, and mitigate the horrors of slavery in Massachusetts, hardly amounted to a positive protest against the institution itself. In their time there was no public opinion against slavery, and probably very little exercise of private judgment against it. Even among the Quakers the inner light had not yet disclosed its enormity, or awakened tender consciences to its utter wickedness.
There were two signal exceptions to the general ​theory and practice of that period on this subject, both of which deserve to be had in everlasting remembrance. We shall make no apology for noticing them in this place, although their connection with the history of slavery in Massachu{{ls}etts is very remote.
Among the "Acts and Orders made at the Generall Court of Election held at Warwicke this 18th day of May, anno 1652," "The Commissioners of Providence and Warwicke being lawfully mett and sett," on the second day of their session (19th May, 1652), enacted and ordered as follows, viz.:
"Whereas, there is a common course practised among Englishmen to buy negers, to that end they may have them for service or slaves for ever; for the preventinge of such practices among us, let it be ordered, that no blacke mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise, to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten yeares, or untill they come to bee twentiefour yeares of age, if they bee taken in under fourteen, from the time of their cominge within the liberties of this Collonie. And at the end or terme of ten yeares to sett them free, as is the manner with the English servants. And that man that will not let them goe free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to that end that they may be enslaved to others for a long time, hee or they shall forfeit to the Collonie forty pounds." R. I. Records, i., 248.
This noble act stands out in solitary grandeur in the middle of the seventeenth century, the first legislative enactment in the history of this continent, if not of the world, for the suppression of involuntary servitude. But, unhappily, it was not enforced, even ​in the towns over which the authority of the Commissioners extended.
The other exception to which we have referred is to be found in the following declaration against slavery by the Quakers of Germantown, Pennsylvania, in 1688. These were a "little handful" of German Friends from Cresheim, a town not far from Worms, in the Palatinate.
We are indebted to the curious and zealous research of Mr. Nathan Kite, of Philadelphia, for the publication of this interesting memorial. It appeared in The Friend, Vol. xvii., No. 16, January 13, 1844. The paper from which Mr. Kite copied was the original. At the foot of the address, John Hart, the clerk of the Monthly Meeting, made his minute, and that paper having been then forwarded to the Quarterly Meeting, received a few lines from Anthony Morris, the clerk of that body, to introduce it to the Yearly Meeting, to which it was then directed.
"This is to the monthly meeting held at Richard Worrell's:
"These are the reasons why we are against the traffic of men-body, as followeth: Is there any that would be done or handled at this manner? viz., to be sold or made a slave for all the time of his life? How fearful and faint-hearted are many at sea, when they see a strange vessel, being afraid it should be a Turk, ​and they should be taken, and fold for slaves into Turkey. Now, what is this better done, than Turks do? Yea, rather it is worse for them, which say they are Chrifstians; for we hear that the most part of such negers are brought hither against their will and consent, and that many of them are stolen. Now, though they are black, we cannot conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as [than] it is to have other white ones. There is a saying, that we should do to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent, or colour they are. And those who steal or rob men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike? Here is liberty of conscience, which is right and reasonable; here ought to be likewise liberty of the body, except of evil-doers, which is another case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against. In Europe, there are many oppressed for conscience-sake; and here there are those oppressed which are of a black colour. And we who know that men must not commit adultery—some do commit adultery in others, separating wives from their husbands, and giving them to others: and some sell the children of these poor creatures to other men. Ah! do consider well this thing, you who do it, if you would be done at this manner—and if it is done according to Christianity! You surpass Holland and Germany in this thing. This makes an ill report in all those countries of Europe, where they hear of [it,] that the Quakers do here handel men as they handel there the cattle. And for that reason some have no mind or inclination to come hither. ​And who shall maintain this your cause, or plead for it? Truly, we cannot do so, except you shall inform us better hereof, viz.: that Christians have liberty to practise these things. Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse towards us, than if men should rob or steal us away, and fell us for slaves to strange countries; separating husbands from their wives and children. Being now this is not done in the manner we would be done at, [by]; therefore, we contradict, and are against this traffic of men-body. And we who profess that it is not lawful to steal, must, likewise, avoid to purchase such things as are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and stealing, if possible. And such men ought to be delivered out of the hands of the robbers, and set free as in Europe. Then is Pennsylvania to have a good report, instead, it hath now a bad one, for this sake, in other countries: Especially whereas the Europeans are desirous to know in what manner the Quakers do rule in their province; and most of them do look upon us with an envious eye. But if this is done well, what shall we say is done evil?
"If once these slaves (which they say are so wicked and stubborn men,) should join themselves—fight for their freedom, and handel their masters and mistresses, as they did handel them before; will thefse masters and mistressses take the sword at hand and war against these poor slaves, like, as we are able to believe, some will not refuse to do? Or, have these poor negers not as much right to fight for their freedom, as you have to keep them slaves?
"Now consider well this thing, if it is good or ​bad. And in case you find it to be good to handel these blacks in that manner, we desire and require you hereby lovingly, that you may inform us herein, which at this time never was done, viz., that Christians have such a liberty to do so. To the end we shall be satisfied on this point, and satisfy likewise our good friends and acquaintances in our native country, to whom it is a terror, or fearful thing, that men should be handelled so in Pennsylvania.
"This is from our meeting at Germantown, held y$^e$ 18th of the 2d month, 1688, to be delivered to the monthly meeting at Richard Worrell's.
"Garret Henderich, Derick op de Graeff, Francis Daniel Pastorius, Abram op de Graeff.
"At our monthly meeting, at Dublin, y$^e$ 30th 2d mo., 1688, we having inspected y$^e$ matter, above mentioned, and considered of it, we find it so weighty that we think it not expedient for us to meddle with it here, but do rather commit it to y$^e$ consideration of y$^e$ quarterly meeting; y$^e$ tenor of it being related to y$^e$ truth.
"On behalf of y$^e$ monthly meeting,
"Jo. Hart.
"This abovementioned, was read in our quarterly meeting, at Philadelphia, the 4th of y$^e$ 4th mo., '88, and was from thence recommended to the yearly meeting, and the above said Derrick, and the other two mentioned therein, to present the same to y$^e$ above ​said meeting, it being a thing of too great weight for this meeting to determine.
"Signed by order of y$^e$ meeting.
"Anthony Morris."
The minutes of the Yearly Meeting, held at Burlington in the same year, record the result of this first effort among the Quakers.
"At a Yearly Meeting, held at Burlington the 5th day of the 7th Month, 1688.
"A paper being here presented by some German Friends Concerning the Lawfulness & Unlawfulness of Buying & Keeping of Negroes It was adjudged not to be so proper for this Meeting to give a Positive Judgment in the Case It having so general a Relation to many other Parts & therefore at present they Forbear It." Extract from the Original Minutes, copied by Nathan Kite. Compare Bettle, in Penn. Hist. Soc. Coll., i., 365.
Richard Baxter has been represented as having "echoed the opinions of Puritan Massachusetts." Bancroft, iii., 412. We have already shown that the Puritans of Massachusetts were not hostile to slavery. Neither was Baxter; for he expressly recognized the lawfulness of the purchase and use of men as slaves, although he denounced man-stealing as piracy. The principal point of his Christian Directory (published in 1673) in this matter, was concerning the religious obligations growing out of the relation of master and slave. Works, iv., 212–20., xvii., 330., xix., 210.
​Morgan Godwyn, a clergyman of the Church of England, who wrote and published in 1680 "The Negro's and Indian's Advocate, suing for their Admission into the Church," etc., hardly intimates a doubt of the lawfulness of their slavery, while he pleads for their humanity and right to religion against a very general opinion of that day, which denied them both.
Dean Berkeley, in his famous sermon before the Venerable Society in 1731, speaks of "the irrational contempt of the Blacks, as Creatures of another Species, who had no right to be instructed or admitted to the Sacraments." Sermon, p. 19.
And George Keith (then Quaker), whose paper against the practice was said to be given forth by the appointment of the meeting held by him in the city of Philadelphia, about the year 1693, gave a strict charge to Friends "that they should set their negroes at liberty, after some reasonable time of service." Gabriel Thomas's History of Pennsylvania, etc., 1698, pp. 53, 54. This was probably the pamphlet quoted by Dr. Franklin in his letter to John Wright, 4th November, 1789. Works, x., 403.
Keith appears simply to have repeated the words of George Fox in Barbadoes in 1671, when he urged the religious training of the negroes, as well as kind treatment, in place of "cruelty towards them, as the manner of some hath been and is; and that after certain years of servitude they should make them free." Journal, ii., 140. For a more particular account of this testimony of Fox, see The Friend, Vol. xvii. pp. 28, 29. 4to. Phil. 1843. The explicit ​answer of Fox to the charge that the Quakers "taught the negroes to rebel," shows very clearly that anti-slavery doctrines were no part of the Quaker creed at that time. Ibid., pp. 147–9. Compare 454. See also Ralph Sandiford's Brief Examination, etc., Preface.
And for half a century afterwards "that people were as greedy as any Body in keeping Negroes for their Gain," so as to induce the belief that they "approved of it as a People with one consent unanimously." Lay, 84. Ralph Sandiford, in 1729, in his "Brief Examination," etc., thus bemoaned the fact, "that it hath defaced the present Dispensation."
"Had the Friends stood clear of this Practice, that it might have been answered to the Traders in Slaves that there is a People called Quakers in Pennsylvania that will not own this practice in Word or Deed, then would they have been a burning and a shining Light to these poor Heathen, and a Precedent to the Nations throughout the Universe which might have brought them to have seen the Evil of it in themselves, and glorifyed the Lord on our Behalf, and like the Queen of the East, to have admired the Glory and Beauty of the Church of God. But instead thereof, the tender seed in the Honest-hearted is under Suffering, to see both Elders and Ministers as it were cloathed with it, and their offspring after them filling up the Measure of their Parents' Iniquity; which may be suffered till such Time that Recompence from Him that is just to all his Creatures opens that Eye the god of this World has blinded. Though I would not be understood to pervert the Order of the Body, which consists of Servants and Masters, and the ​Head cannot say to the Foot, I have no need of thee; but it is the Converting Men's Liberty to our Wills, who have not, like the Gibeonites, offered themselves willingly, or by Consent given their Ear to the Doorpost, but are made such by Force, in that Nature that desires to Lord it over their Fellow Creatures, is what is to be abhorred by all Christians." pp. 9, 10.
Again, he says in another place: "But in Time this dark Trade creeping in amongst us to the very Ministry, because of the profit by it, hath spread over others like a Leprosy, to the Grief of the Honest-hearted." Preface.
Public sentiment and opinion against slavery were first aroused and stimulated in America in the latter part of the seventeenth century by sympathy for the Christian captives, Dutch and English, who were enslaved by the Turks and the pirates of Northern Africa. Lay's "All Slave-keepers Apostates."—The efforts to ransom and release these unfortunate persons, excited by the terrible sorrow of relatives and friends, kinsmen and countrymen, brought home to some minds (though few) the injustice of their own dealings with the negroes. The earliest writers against slavery urged that argument with peculiar force and unction, but with little effect. They seem to have made no impression on the legislation of the colonies, and curious and zealous research only can recover the memorials of their righteous testimonies.
The earliest positive public challenge to slavery in Massachusetts of which we have any knowledge, was in the year 1700, when a learned, pious, and honored magistrate entered the lists alone, and founded his ​solitary blast in the ears of his brother magistrates and the people, who listened in amazement and wonder, not unmingled with sorrow and contempt. His performance is all the more remarkable from the fact that it stands out in the history of the time separate and distinct as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness."
Samuel Sewall, at that time a Judge of the Superior Court, and afterwards Chief-Justice, published a brief tract in 1700, entitled: "The Selling of Joseph a Memorial." It filled three pages of a folio sheet, ending with the imprint: "Boston of the Massachusetts; Printed by Bartholomew Green and John Allen. June 24th, 1700."
The author presented a copy of this tract "not only to each member of the General Court at the time of its publication, but alo to numerous clergymen and literary gentlemen with whom he was intimate." MS. Letter. Compare Brisssot, i., 224. Although thus extensively circulated at that day, it has for many years been known apparently only by tradition, as nearly all the notices of it which we have seen are confined to the fact of its publication early in the eighteenth century, the date being nowhere correctly stated.
Beyond this, it appears to have been unknown to our historians, and is now reproduced probably for the first time in the present century. Indeed, we have met with no quotation even from it later than 1738, when it was reprinted in Pennsylvania, where antislavery took an earlier and deeper root, and bore earlier fruit, than in any other part of America.
​Its rarity and peculiar interest will justify us in placing the reprint before our readers in this connection. It is somewhat remarkable that so signal a testimony against slavery should have escaped the research of those who have in their custody "the historic fame” of Massachusetts. It is a most honorable memorial of its venerated author.
"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 pretiosior 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 extrayasat 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 fort 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 Crouds 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 traxsse 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 Unsuft. 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.
"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 Sifters 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 sæpe est licita, quia est necessaria; sed ex parte domini agentis, & procurando & exercendo, vix potest esse licita; quia non convenit regulæ illi generali: Quæcunque volueritis ut faciant vobis homines, ita & vos facite eis. Matt. 7. 12.
"Perfecta servitus pænæ, 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. Consc. Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Thes. 2. 3."
Thus signally and clearly did Judge Sewall expose the miserable pretences on which slavery and the slave-trade were then justified in Massachusetts, as they continued to be long years after he "slept with his fathers." And he exhibited in his correspondence his desire that "the wicked practice of slavery" might be ​taken away, as well as his strong conviction that there would be "no great progress in Gospellizing till then." Letter to Henry Newman, Dec.–Jan., 1714–15. It is manifest that he was far in advance of his day and generation in these views, and he has himself left the record that he met more "frowns and hard words" than sympathy! His testimony did not go unchallenged, nor was its publication allowed to pass without reply. John Saffin, a judge of the same court with Judge Sewall, and a slaveholder, printed an answer the next year, of which we regret to say we have been able to find no copy. Could it be found, it would undoubtedly be an interesting document and very important in illustration of the history of slavery in Massachusetts. We might naturally expect to find in it some references to the laws, the principles, and the practices of the Puritan Fathers of that colony.
​The following letter from Judge Sewall, which illustrates the subject further, was addressed
"To the Rev$^d$. & aged Mr. John Higginson.
Apr. 13, 1706.
"Sir,
"I account it a great Favour of God, that I have been priviledged with the Acquaintance and Friendship of many of the First Planters in New England: and the Friendship of your self, as such, has particularly oblig'd me. It is now near Six years agoe since I printed a Sheet in defence of Liberty. The next year after, Mr. Saffin set forth a printed Answer. I forbore troubling the Province with any Reply, untill I saw a very Severe Act passing against Indians and Negros, and then I Reprinted that Question, as I found it stated and answered in the Athenian Oracle; which I knew nothing of before last Autumn was twelve moneths, when I accidentally cast my Eye upon it. Amidst the Frowns and hard Words I have met with for this Undertaking, it is no small refreshment to me, that I have the Learned, Reverend & Aged Mr. Higginson for my Abetter. By the interposition of this Brest-Work, I hope to carry on and manage this Enterprise with Safety and Success. I have inclosed the Prints. I could be glad of your Answer to one Case much in agitation among us at this day: viz., Whether it be not for the Honor of G. and of N. E. to reserve entire and untouch'd the Indian Plantation of Natick, and other Lands under the same Circumstances? that the lying of those Lands unoccupied and undesired by the English, may be a valid and Lasting Evidence, that we desire the Con​version and Wellfare of the Natives, and would by no means Extirpat them, as the Spaniards did? There is one thing more I would mention, and that is, I am verily perswaded that the Set time for the Drying up of the Apocalyptical Euphrates, is very nigh, if not come: and I earnestly bespeak the Assistance of your Prayers in that momentous Concern: w$^{ch}$ I do with the more Confidence, because you were Lifted in that Service above fifty years ago. Pray, Sir! Come afresh into the Confederation. Let me also entreat your Prayers for me, and my family, that the Blessing of G. may rest upon the head of every one in it by reason of the good will of Him who dwell'd in the Bush. My service to Madam Higginson. I am, Sir,
"Your humble Serv$^t$. "S. S."
We are unable to give any account of the Act against Indians and Negroes, whose severity induced Sewall to renew his efforts in their behalf. These efforts were probably successful, as none appears to have been passed into a law at all answering to his defcription in its provifions, and in point of time; or if passed, it must have been speedily repealed. If the Act referred to should be found, it might furnish a striking illustration of the views of the time concerning the status of these unhappy races of men.
We shall therefore re-produce here "that Question" as "stated and answered in the Athenian Oracle," which Sewall used to so good purpose in defending the rights of Indians and Negroes against the hostile legislation of Massachusetts, in the early years of the eighteenth century.
From the Athenian Oracle, Vol. 11., pp. 460–63.
"Q. We read in Gen. 17. 12: And he that is eight days old shall be Circumcised among you, every Man-child in their Generation. He that is born in the House, or bought with Money of any Stranger that is not of thy Seed. This was God's Covenant with Abraham, and in him with all the Jews; which Covenant by Christ's coming into the World, being abolished, and the Covenant of Baptism instituted in its stead; The Question is, Whether those Merchants and Planters in the West Indies, as well all other parts of the World, that buy Negroes, or other Heathen Servants or Slaves, are not indispensably bound to bring such Servants to be Baptized, as well as Abraham was to Circumcise his Stranger Servants? Consequently, what's to be thought of those Christian Masters, who refuse to let such Servants be baptized; because if they were, they wou'd have their freedom at a certain term of Years allow'd by the Laws of the several Plantations?
"A. We have met with this Question before, though to comply with the Gentleman's desire, we'll here give it a larger Answer; tho' in the first Place, we must observe a false supposition in the wording of it. That God's Covenant with Abraham was abolished by the Covenant he made with us by our Saviour, and consequently they are two different Covenants; whereas they were rather the same Covenant, with two different Seals; we say the Covenant God made with Abraham, was not a Covenant of Works, but of Faith, as well as that he makes by Christ with all Believers; nay, was the very same with it, Christ being promised in God's Covenant with Abraham, when 'twas said, That in his seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed; which is interpreted of Christ by the inspired Writers; and this is further evident from the Apostles way of Arguing, Rom. 4. 11. 13. He received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be Father of all them that believe, though they be not Crcumcised; for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the Law; but through Faith, etc.
"Now to the Question. If Abraham was oblig'd to Circumcise all that were born of his House, and that were bought with money of ​the Stranger (the Samaritan Version has it בָּרְבַּרָה Barbarah, whence Βάρβαρος a Barbarian, names that all Nations have ever since flung at one another, and the Hebrews as often call'd by it among the Greeks as any. If he was to do this, ought not all Christians by Parity of Reason to do the like by their Slaves and Servants? We answer, Yes, and much more, as the Gospel is now more clearly revealed than 'twas to Abraham, who indeed saw Christ, and rejoic'd, but 'twas in darker Types and Prophecies. But in order to a more full satisfaction of this Difficulty, it may be further convenient to enquire; whether Negro's Children are to be Baptized, and for grown Persons what Preparation is required of 'em? To the first, a great Man of our Church was of an opinion, That a Negro's Child ought to be baptiz'd, as well as any others; the Promise reaching To all that were afar off, as well as to Believers and their Children, and in this case, the right of the child is in the Master, not the Slave; and if Christ dy'd for all, why should not the Vertues of his Death be apply'd to all; who do nothing to resist it, for the washing away their Original Pravity? Again, as we argue in the cafe of Infant Baptism. If Infants were in the Covenant before Christ, how come they since to be excluded? So we may here, and perhaps more generally; If all Infants, born in Abraham's house, or bought with Money of the Stranger or Barbarian (who often sold their own Children then, as they do now) if they were then to have the Seal of the Covenant, how have they since forfeited it? Why mayn't they be capable of a nobler Seal, 'tis true, but yet of the same Covenant made with all Mankind by Christ, that promis'd Seed, in whom, as before, all Nations should be blessed, and the breach repaired that was made in Adam; as was, we are sure, the express opinion of St. Jerom, who in his disputation with. the Pelagian, Ep. 17, has remarkable Expressions. Why are Infants Baptized, says the Pelagian? The Orthodox answers, That in Baptism their ​Sins may be remitted. The Pelagian replies, Where did they ever sin? The Orthodox rejoyns, that S. Paul shall answer for him, who says in the fifth of the Rom., Death reign'd from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinn'd, according to the similitude of Adam's Transgression. And he quotes St. Cyprian in the same place, both to his and our Purpose, That if Remission of Sins is given even to greater and more notorious Sinners, and none is Excepted from Grace, none prohibited from Baptism, much less ought an Infant to be deny'd Baptism, who has no Sin of his own, but only that of his Father Adam to answer for. This for Children, and there's yet les doubt of those who are of Age to answer for themselves, and would soon learn the Principles of our Faith, and might be taught the Obligation of the Vow they made in Baptism, as there's little doubt but Abraham instructed his Heathen Servants, who were of Age to learn, in the Nature of Circumcision, before he Circumcis'd them; nor can we conclude much less from God's own noble Testimony of him, Gen. 18. 19. I know him, that he will command his Children and his Household, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.
"What then should hinder but these be Baptized? If only the Covetousness of their Masters, who for fear of losing their Bodies, will venture their Souls; which of the two are we to esteem the greater Heathens? Now that this is notorious Matter of Fact, that they are so far from persuading those poor Creatures to Come to Baptism, that they discourage them from it, and rather hinder them as much as possible, though many of the wretches, as we have been informed, earnestly desire it; this we believe, none that are concern'd in the Plantations, if they are ingenuous, will deny, but own they don't at all care to have them Baptized. Talk to a Planter of the Soul of a Negro, and he'll be apt to tell ye (or at least his Actions speak it loudly) that the Body of one of them may be worth twenty Pounds; but the Souls of an hundred of them would not yield him one Farthing; and therefore he's not at all solicitous about them, though the true Reason is indeed, because of that Custom of giving them their Freedom after turning Christians, which we know not if it be Reasonable; we are sure the Father of the Faithful did not so by those Servants whom he had Circumcised. 'Tis no where required in Scripture. St. Paul indeed bids Masters not be cruel and unreasonable to their Slaves, especially if Brethren or Christians; but he no where bids them ​give 'em their Liberty, nor do's Christianity alter any Civil Right; nor do's the same Apostle, in all his excellent Plea for Onesimus, once tell his Master 'tis his Duty to set him Free; all he desires is, he'd again receive and forgive him; nay, he tells Servants, 'tis their Duty, in whatever state they are call'd therein to abide; besides, some Persons, nay, Nations seem to be born for Slaves; particularly many of the Barbarians in Africa, who have been such almost from the beginning of the World, and who are in a much better Condition of Life, when Slaves among us, then when at Liberty at Home, to cut Throats and Eat one another, especially when by the Slavery of their Bodies, they are brought to a Capacity of Freeing their Souls from a much more unsupportable Bondage. Though in the mean time, if there be such a Law or Custom for their Freedom, to encourage 'em to Christianity, be it reasonable or otherwise, this is certain, that none can excuse those who for that Reason should any way hinder or discourage 'em from being Christians; some of whose excuses are almost too shameful to repeat, since they seem to reflect on the Christian Religion, as if that made Men more untractable and ungovernable, than when bred in Ignorance and Heathenism, which must proceed from the Perverseness of some Tempers, as before, fitter for Slaves than Freedom; or for want of good Instruction, when they have nothing but the name of Christianity, without understanding any thing of the Obligation thereof; or Lastly, From the bad Examples of their Master's themselves, who live such lives as often scandalize these honester Heathens."
We shall force no inferences from this document as to the character of the legislation against which it was directed. It is an argument for the "right to Religion," in that day so universally denied, in practice at least, to enslaved Indians and Negroes, and their offspring, that it would be strange, if true, that Massachusetts furnished any but occasional exceptions to the prevailing rule.
​We have previously noticed Sewall's "essay" to prevent Indians and Negroes being rated with brutes in the tax-laws, in the year 1716. Three years later, a new occasion presented itself for the renewal of his efforts in behalf of the oppressed. A master had killed his negro slave, and was about to answer for the offence before the Court. One of the judges seems to have desired the aid and counsel of the Chief Justice in his ​preparations for the case, and Sewall's Letter-Book preserves the following memoranda of what he communicated.
"The poorest Boys and Girls in this Province, such as are of the lowest Condition; whether they be English, or Indians, or Ethiopians: They have the same Right to Religion and Life, that the Richest Heirs have.
"And they who go about to deprive them of this Right, they attempt the bombarding of HEAVEN, and the Shells they throw, will fall down upon their own heads.
"Mr. Justice Davenport, Sir, upon your desire, I have sent you these Quotations, and my own ​Sentiments. I pray GOD, the Giver and Guardian of Life, to give his gracious Direction to you, and the other Justices; and take leave, who am your brother and most humble servant,
"Samuel Sewall.
"Boston, July 20, 1719.
" I inclosed also the Selling of Joseph, and my Extract out of the Athenian Oracle.
"To Addington Davenport, Esqr., etc., going to Judge Sam$^l$. Smith of Sandwich, for killing his Negro."
That such arguments were necessary, or even regarded as appropriate on such an occasion, is a fact full of meaning. We have previously intimated a doubt whether the slave could claim any right or privilege of protection under the laws which were known as the "Liberties of Servants;" and in connection with the instructions to Andros in 1688, we have called the attention of the reader to the distinction between the Christian servants or slaves and the Indians and Negroes. The former were to be protected against the inhuman severity of ill-masters or overseers, while the latter were to be so far advanced in the scale of humanity, that the "wilful killing" of them should "be punished with death, and a fitt penalty imposed for the maiming of them."
We cannot, however, at present attempt to determine what were the actual legal restraints upon the power of a master over his slave, in Massachusetts. We do not know that the materials for such a deter​mination exist anywhere fave in such records as remain of those ancient tribunals of the Colony and Province by which alone the rights of persons and of property were then, as now, judicially ascertained and regulated. There are abundant modern statements of opinion on these points, but we cannot recall a single instance in which these statements are fortified by good and sufficient testimony from the ancient and contemporary records or authorities; and we cannot doubt that the reader of these notes will sympathize in our desire to rest on facts rather than opinions. For example, in the particular case above referred to, the awful solemnity with which the Chief Justice communicates his charge to his brother magistrate when about to "judge" a master for "killing his Negro," gives peculiar interest to the result; and it is greatly to be regretted that the record of the trial, conviction, and punishment of such an offender should be concealed among the neglected rubbish of any Massachusetts Court-House. If Samuel Smith of Sandwich was hung for the murder of his slave in Massachusetts in the year 1719, it is due to the historic fame of the Province that the world should know it!
We are perfectly aware that the opinion has prevailed that the negro or mulatto or Indian slave in Massachusetts, "always had many rights which raised him far above the absolute slave." These are nowhere more favorably stated than by Nathan Dane, in his great work on American Law. Abridgment, II., 313. He considers the subject in eight points of view:
"1. The master has no control over the religion ​of such slave, any more than over the religion of any other member of his family;
"2. None over his life; if he killed him, he was punishable as for killing a freeman;
"3. The master was liable to his slave's action, for beating, wounding or immoderately chastising him, as much as for immoderately correcting an apprentice, or a child;
"4. The slave was capable of holding property, as a devisee or legatee, and as recovered for wounds, etc., so much so, if the master took away such property, his slave could sue him by prochein ame;
"5. If one took him from his master without his consent, he could not have trover, but only sue, as for taking away his other servant; on the whole the slave had the right of property and of life, as apprentices had, and the only difference was 'an apprentice is a servant for time, and the slave is a servant for life.' In Connecticut, the slave was, by statute, specially forbidden to contract; no such statute is recollected in Massachusetts;
"6. If a slave married a free woman, with the consent of his master, he was emancipated, for his master had suffered him to contract a relation inconsistent with a state of slavery; 'hereby the master abandoned his right to him as a slave, as a minor child is emancipated from his father when he is married.' Ld. Raymond, 356;
"7. A slave however could be sold, and in some states be taken in execution for his master's debts; but no evidence is found of such taking in execution in Massachusetts;
​"8. On the principles of the English Common Law, men may be made slaves for life for crimes, and so clearly, by our present law. Property in a negro [was] acquired without deed. 1 Dal., 169."
Now, if all these points had been well taken and could be fortified by the necessary amount of historical testimony, they would unquestionably make a very good case. But unhappily they are mainly theoretical statements derived from abstract reasoning on general principles, of which no such applications were thought of in the period to which they are assigned. Yet the formality with which they are stated, and the dignified place they hold in a book of great authority, give them an importance beyond the conjectures which are generally ventured as to how far the lot of the slave was mitigated in Massachusetts.
Mr. Dane copied them with but slight alterations, chiefly in favor of Massachusetts, from the treatise of Judge Reeve on "Domestic Relations," pp. 340–41, published in 1816. There is no reference to the statutes, nor to any judicial decisions on any point, excepting as here quoted, either in original or copy.
Shall we be accounted presumptuous, if we add a few comments as well as a reference to the facts already presented, which must throw great doubts over the whole array of rights thus claimed as having been accorded to slaves in Massachusetts?
The right to religion and life was not clearly recognized as belonging equally to bond-slave and freeman. Mr. Dane altered Judge Reeve's statement of the latter point. Judge Reeve said, "if he killed him, ​he was liable to the same punishment as for killing a freeman." The alteration indicates the nature of the doubt which may have arisen in the mind of Mr. Dane when he wrote it, "he was punishable as for killing a freeman." No doubt he was punishable. The incident which we have presented of the master called to answer before the Court for the fact of killing his negro shows this. So too, in the first Massachusetts Code, even "the Bruite Creature" is protected against "Tirrany and Crueltie" by the very next statute after that which establishes slavery—a significant sequence!
Here let it be remembered that the original law of slavery in Massachusetts gave to slaves "all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth morally require." Now the Mosaic Law here recognized and reënacted did not protect the life of a heathen slave against his master's violence, by the penalty of "life for life," and although such violence might be punished, the kind and degree of punishment is not now to be ascertained. Exodus, XXI., 20, 21. And there is a marked distinction to be observed in regard to the Hebrew, though a slave, who is favorably compared with the hired servant and sojourner in contrast with the bondman. Leviticus, XXV., 39, 40. To what extent the "rigor" of heathen bondage among the Jews was softened into "liberties and Christian usages" among the Puritans is a question of fact and not of opinion. What was morally required by the law of God establifhed in Israel, in this as in all similar business, was a matter reserved for their own decision, in their own General Court and other tribunals. And ​this general provision in the original law seems to have been the only one to which the slave could appeal, or more properly by which the conduct of the master could be regulated, in the government and disposition of his chattel. It is certain that most of the special provisions of the law respecting masters and servants had no application to slaves, and we have already expressed the doubt whether slaves enjoyed any of the privileges of servants under that law.
Where is the evidence that Indians and Negroes in bondage were entitled to protection as other servants? and that the master was liable to his slave's action for beating, wounding, or immoderately chastising, etc.? It is far more probable that the condition of the servant was practically assimilated to that of the slave, than that the slave shared any of the privileges accorded by statute to the servant. It would add much to our knowledge on this subject, if the examples should be adduced to show at what period in the history of Massachusetts the Indian and negro slave first acquired a status in Court as a prosecutor, or in any other capacity than as a criminal at the bar, before which he was often enough called to answer under the unjust and unequal legislation of that period. If it was at any time before the American Revolution—how came it to pass that, in 1783, a fine of forty shillings against a master for "beating, bruising, and otherwise evilly intreating" his negro-slave, gave "a mortal wound to slavery in Massachufetts?" And further, if a slave could recover against his master damages for cruelty, why was it necessary to resort to the suit "by prochein ame" to enable him to keep his recovery?
​Again, where is the evidence that slaves were capable of holding property, etc., beyond the occasional and exceptional permission to enjoy some privileges as a peculium, with the profits of which they might in some cases be enabled even to purchase their manumission? Could slaves take and hold real estate in Massachusetts? "No servant, either man or maid," was permitted “to give, fell or truck any commodity whatsoever without license from their Masters, during the time of their service, under pain of fine, or corporal punishment, at the discretion of the Court, as the offence shall deserve." Mass. Laws, Ed. 1672, p. 104. Is it probable that a slave was on any better footing in this respect than a white servant?
As to the form of action by which a master should sue for the unlawful taking of his slave without his consent—the only examples of such suits in Massachusetts to which we are able to refer, contradict the opinion that he could not have trover, but must sue in trespass per quod servitium amisit. Goodspeed v. Gay, Mass. Sup. Court Records, 1763, fol. 47, 101. Allison v. Cockran, Ibid. 1764, fol. 103. The right to maintain trover for a negro was a matter of course in Massachusetts, for there can be no question as to the fact that he might be held and fold as a chattel under the laws of that Colony and Province, and trover lies by any one who has any special property in a chattel, with the right to immediate possession. Compare Gray, in Quincy's Reports, 93, note, where all the authorities are cited.
The marriage of slaves in Massachusetts has already ​been noticed, and it is obvious that the legislators f Massachusetts never intended that such marriages should confer any rights or impose any duties which were incompatible with the state of slavery; and it may safely be alleged that no instance can be produced of the emancipation of a slave as a legal consequence of marriage with a free woman.
The candor of the admission "that a slave however could be sold, and in some states be taken in execution for his master's debts," is unhappily qualified by the assertion that "no evidence is found of such taking in execution in Massachusetts." The only reason it was not found was, that it was not hunted; for the failure to find it must have been either from want of disposition or lack of diligence.
But we have said enough on these topics to put those who are most interested upon inquiry. Those who are familiar with such researches and have opportunities of easy reference to the records and files of the Courts in Massachusetts during the period of which we are writing, can probably collate a sufficient number of examples to settle all these questions by authority. They will undoubtedly illustrate the gradual amelioration of all the various forms of oppression, but these changes must be held to mark the era of their historical development. If they prove that the doubts we have ​suggested are not well founded, we shall be most gratified with the result.
The ultimate theory of slavery in all ages and nations has been reduced to a very brief and comprehensive statement. Dr. Maine, in his admirable treatise on Ancient Law, says that "the simple wish to use the bodily powers of another person as a means of ministering to one's own ease or pleasure is doubtless the foundation of slavery and as old as human nature." And again, "there seems to be something in the institution of slavery which has at all times either shocked or perplexed mankind, however little habituated to reflection, and however slightly advanced in the cultivation of its moral instincts." To satisfy the conscience of the master, the Greeks eftablished the idea of intellectual inferiority of certain races and consequent natural aptitude for the servile condition. The Romans declared the doctrine of a supposed agreement between victor and vanquished, in which the first stipulated for the perpetual services of his foe, and the other gained in consideration the life which he had legitimately forfeited. Compare Maine, 162–66.
The Puritans of New England appear to have been neither shocked nor perplexed with the institution, for which they made ample provision in their earliest code. They were familiar with the Greek and Roman ideas on the subject, and added the conviction that slavery was established by the law of God, and that Christianity always recognized it as the antecedent Mosaic practice. On these foundations, is it strange that it held its place so long in the history of Massachusetts?
​It has been said that the first step towards the destruction of slavery was the restraint or prohibition of the importation of slaves. But it would be absurd to regard laws for this purpose as an expression of humane consideration for the negroes. Graham, in his history, characterizes such a view of the most stringent one ever made in any of the Colonies, as an "impudent absurdity." Hist. U. S., IV., 78. We have already noticed the Massachusetts acts of 1705, with the additional acts of 1728 and 1739, imposing and enforcing the collection of an import duty of four pounds per head upon all negroes brought into the Province.
There is no indication in the acts themselves, nor have we been able to find any evidence, that they were intended other than as revenue acts, beyond that which we have presented in these notes.
We have heretofore quoted the instruction of the town of Boston in 1701. It is not improbable that it was the result of Judge Sewall's efforts in 1700. Fruitless as it was, it shows that even then some were wise enough to see that the importation of negroes was not so beneficial to the Crown or Country as that of white servants would be. In 1706, an essay or "Computation that the Importation of Negroes is not so profitable as that of White Servants," was published in Boston, which may properly be reproduced here. It was the first newspaper article against the importation of negroes published in America, and appeared in the Boston News-Letter, No. 112, June 10, 1706. We are inclined to attribute this article also to Judge Sewall.
"By last Year's Bill of Mortality for the Town of Boston, in Number 100 News-Letter, we are furnished with a Lift of 44 Negroes dead last year, which being computed one with another at 30l. 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 fso 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 10l. a Head, who are not able to launch out 40 or 50l. for a Negro the now common Price.
"A Man then might buy a White Man Servant we suppose for 10l. 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 10l. 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 200l. a year, and a 1000l. 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 1320l. by 44 Negroes, which is also a loss to the Country in general, and for a less loss (if it may be improperly be so called) for a 1000l. 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 60l. which would have procured him six white Servants at 10l. 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 3l. into the Treasury."
A third of a century after the publication of Judge Sewall's tract, another made its appearance, entitled "A Testimony against that Anti-Christian Practice of making Slaves of Men Wherein it is shewed to be contrary to the Dispensation of the Law, and Time of the Gospel, and very opposite both to Grace and Nature. By Elihu Coleman. Matthew 7. 12. ​Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Printed in the year 1733." MS. Copy in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society. This writer was a minister of the Society of Friends, and of Nantucket. His work was written in 1729–30. Coffin's Newbury, p. 338. Macy's Nantucket, p. 279.
At the Nantucket Monthly Meeting, in 1716, it was determined as "y$^e$ sense and judgment of this meeting, that it is not agreeable to truth for Friends to purchase slaves and hold them term of life." Macy's Nantucket, p. 281.
In 1755, March 10, the town of Salem authorized a petition to the General Court against the importation of negroes. Felt's Salem, II., 416. There may have been other occasional efforts of this sort, but they must have been comparatively few and fruitless.
We have thus noticed the most important, if not the only anti-slavery demonstrations which appear in the history of Massachusetts down to the period immediately preceding the Revolution. Excepting those already mentioned, we know of no public advocates for the slave in that Colony and Province until the cry of resistance to British tyranny began to resound through the Colonies.
James Otis's great speech in the famous Cause of the Writs of Assistance in 1761—the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain—declared the rights of man, inherent and inalienable. In that speech the poor negroes were not ​forgotten. None ever-asserted their rights in stronger terms. Adams's Works, X., 315. Mr. Bancroft postpones Otis's "protest against negro slavery" to a later year (1764), when he translated the "scathing satire" of Montesquieu in his assertion and proof of the rights of the British Colonies. This difference in time is not material for our present purpose. Many years were to pass away before his views on this subject were accepted by the children's children of those to whom his words then founded like a rhapsody and an extravagance.
It was a strong arm, and it struck a sturdy blow, but the wedge recoiled and flew out from the tough black knot of slavery, which was destined to outlast the fiercest fires of the Revolution in Massachusetts, thus kindled with live coals from the altar of universal liberty.
John Adams heard the words of Otis, and "shuddered at the doctrine he taught," and to the end of his long life continued "to shudder at the consequences that may be drawn from such premises." Yet John Adams "adored the idea of gradual abolitions." Works, X., 315. For his later views on emancipation, see Works, VI., 511., X., 379.
The views expressed by Otis must have sounded strangely in the ears of men who "lived (as John Adams himself says he did) for many years in times when the practice [of slavery] was not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character." Works, X., 380. If there was a prevailing public sentiment against slavery in Massachusetts—as has been constantly claimed of ​late—the people of that day, far less demonstrative than their descendants, had an extraordinary way of not showing it. Hutchinson, who was undoubtedly the man of his time most familiar with the history of his native province, says in his first volume, published in 1764, p. 444, "Some judicious persons are of opinion that the permission of slavery has been a publick mischief." This is certainly the indication of a very mild type of opposition—by no means of a pervading public sentiment.
John Adams was not alone in his aftonishment at the ideas expressed by Otis. These ideas were new as they were startling to the people of Massachusetts in that day. And to the calm judgment of the historian there is nothing strange in the fact that the foremost man of his time in that province should have shuddered at the doctrines which Otis taught. More than a century passed away before all the ancient badges of servitude could be removed from the colored races in Massachusetts, if indeed it be even now true that none of those disabilities which so strongly mark the social status of the negro still linger in the legislation of that State.
VI.
Among the strongest indications of the coming change in opinion on this subject, the "suits for liberty," as they are called, challenge attention. They are also known as "suits for freedom," and "suits for service," in which slaves "sued their masters for free
* ↑ Compare Arnold, i., 240. We omit his mistaken deference to Massachusetts in regard to the Act of 1646—so long misunderstood or misrepresented as a protest against slavery. See ante, pp. 28–30. Also Bancroft, i., 174, and Hildreth, i., 373.
* ↑ It was reprinted as a part of Benjamin Lay's tract, "All Slave-Keepers that keep the Innocent in Bondage, Apostates …," in which it occupies pp. 199–207 inclusive. The title of Lay's tract gives the imprint, "Philadelphia, Printed for the Author, 1737;" but it was not published until the following year. See The American Weekly Mercury, No. 973, Aug. 17–24, 1738, and following numbers; especially No. 982, Oct. 19–26, 1738, in which is printed the repudiation of Lay and his book, by the Yearly Meeting.
* ↑ Since this portion of our work was first printed, in the Historical Magazine for June, 1864, Sewall's tract has been reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, from an original presented to its Library by the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop. Proc. M. H. S., 1863–64, pp. 161–5. And, what is of much more importance in this connection, a copy of Saffin's answer has been discovered. It is a small quarto, entitled "A | Brief and Candid Answer to a late | Printed Sheet entituled | The Selling of JOSEPH | whereunto is annexed, | a True and Particular Narrative by way of Vindication of the | Author's Dealing with and Prosecution of his Negro Man Servant | for his vile and exhorbitant Behaviour towards his Master and his | Tenant, Thomas Shepard; which hath been wrongfully represented | to their Prejudice and Defamation. | By John Saffin, Esqr.: | Boston: Printed in the Year 1701." The original is now in the possession of George Brinley, Esq., of Hartford, Conn. We are indebted to the research and sagacity of Mr. J. Hammond Trumbull, President of the Connecticut Historical Society, for the discovery of Saffin's tract and permission to make the present use of it. Saffin's original petitions to the General Court in regard to this affair, one referring to his pamphlet as in print, etc., etc., are preserved in the Mass. Archives, IX., 152, 153.
* ↑ [At a meeting of the General Association of the Colony of Connecticut, 1738, "It was inquired—whether the infant slaves of Christian masters may be baptized in the right of their masters—they solemnly promising to train them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: and whether it is the duty of such masters to offer such children and thus religiously to promise. Both questions were affirmatively answered. Records as reported by Rev. C. Chapin, D. D., quoted in Jones's Religious Instruction of the Negroes, etc. p. 34]
* ↑ "Slaves were admitted to be church members at a period when church members had peculiar political privileges." Quincy's Reports, 30, note. This is Mr. Justice Gray's statement on the following authorities: 1. Winthrop's Journal, II., 26, and Savage's note. "Mo. 2. 13. [1641]. A negro maid, servant to Mr. Stoughton of Dorchester, being well approved by divers years' experience, for sound knowledge and true godliness, was received into the church and baptized." Mr. Savage's note is, "Similar instances have been common enough ever since." 2. Ancient Charters, 117. "To the end the body of the freemen may be preserved of honest and good men: It is ordered, that henceforth no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this Commonwealth, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of this jurisdiction." 3. Bancroft's History U. S., I., 360. "The servant, the bondman, might be a member of the church, and therefore a freeman of the Company." Notwithstanding this array of authority, we must suggest our doubts, 1st. Whether the notice itself by Winthrop is not a palpable evidence of the extraordinary and exceptional character of the incident that a negro maid-servant should be baptized and received into the church? Mr. Savage's remark cannot be regarded as authority, not being sustained by references to any similar instances. 2d. Whether a single instance has ever been found or is known in the history of Massachusetts, during the period referred to, in which a servant or bondman, black or white, actually became a freeman of the Company? Mr. Palfrey indulges in some pleasing speculations on this topic. "A negro slave might be a member of the church, and this fact presents a curious question. As a church-member, he was eligible to the political franchise; and if he should be actually invested with it, he would have a part in making laws to govern his master,—laws with which his master, if a non-communicant, would have had no concern, except to obey them." Touchstone wisely said there was "much virtue in If," and Dr. South has a maxim that "we are not to build certain rules on the contingency of human actions." Whether the historian recalled either "instance," we cannot say; but here he evidently recognized the impropriety of constructing history on a frame of conjectural contingencies, and frankly admitted at the end of his note, "it is improbable that the Court would have made a slave—while a slave—a member of the Company, though he were a communicant." History of New England, II., 30, note. As to baptism of slaves in Massachusetts, see ante, pp. 58–59. Compare Hurd's Law of Freedom and Bondage, Vol. I., pp. 165, 210, 358. The famous French Code Noir of 1685 obliged every planter to have his Negroes baptized, and properly instructed in the doctrines and duties of Christianity. Nor was this the only important and humane provision of that celebrated statute, to which we may seek in vain for any parallel in British Colonial legislation. Its influence was felt in England, and may have given rife to those humane instructions, one of which we have already quoted (p. 52). Another required his Majesty's Governors "with the assistance of our Council to find out the best means to facilitate and encourage the Conversion of Negros and Indians to the Christian Religion." N. Y. Col. Doc., III., 374. Evelyn, in his Diary, gives an interesting account of the determination of the King, James II., on this point. At Winchester, 16 September, 1685, he says, "I may not forget a resolution which his Majesty made, and had a little before entered upon it at the Council Board at Windsor or Whitehall, that the negroes in the Plantations should all be baptized, exceedingly declaiming against the impiety of their masters prohibiting it, out of a mistaken opinion that they would be ipso facto free; but his Majesty persists in his resolution to have them christened, which piety the Bishop blessed him for." Works, II., 245. This was good Bishop Ken, the Christian Psalmist.
* ↑ We have been unable to verify the reference to "Lord Raymond, 356," as to the analogous emancipation of a minor child "from his father when he is married"—but we have high authority for the statement that the laws of Massachusetts know of no such emancipation. 15 Mass. Reports, 203.