Negro Servitude and its Priority in other Colonies
Slavery received statutory recognition in the colony of Maryland in 1663, and in North Carolina in 1715. White servitude had long existed in these colonies, receiving statutory recognition in Maryland as early as 1637, and in North Carolina in 1665. Servitude, therefore, had ample time for local definition "before slavery entered upon either its customary or legal development."[1] Ballagh holds that in these colonies, also, Negro servitude historically preceded slavery.[2] In Maryland, particularly, along with Virginia and Massachusetts, the "circumstances surrounding the enactments defining slavery" indicate a natural transition from Negro servitude to slavery. Since servitude existed in these states, it seems probable, from analogy with conditions in other parts of the country, that the early Negroes in these colonies were servants.[3]
Negro servitude preceded Negro slavery in Massachusetts. This servitude existed legally and underwent a period of development. After the recognition of slavery in 1641, Negro servitude continued along with slavery and in a more pronounced manner.[4] The early inhabitants of Massachusetts were hostile to the introduction of slavery. This attitude was, perhaps, responsible for the milder form which Negro bondage first assumed, for "the facts of history ... seem to establish this conclusion, that slavery never was in harmony with the public sentiment of the colony."[5] The Salem ship, the Desire, brought to the Colony, February 26, 1638, "some cotton, tobacco, and negroes." This cargo had been taken on by Mr. Pierce of the Desire, at Providence Island, evidently in exchange for fifteen Indian boys and two women, taken as prisoners in the Pequod War.[6] At this time, it was common to purchase servants from shipmasters and merchants, and so it is not certain that the Negroes brought back by Mr. Pierce were slaves. At Providence, moreover, Negroes had the status of servants.[7] When Josselyn visited New England in 1638-39, he saw in Boston servants, English and Negroes.[8] In 1641, after the adoption of the Body of Liberties, a master of a ship brought two Negroes for sale into slavery, but was compelled by the court to give them up. These Negroes were then sent back to their native country. In 1646, the General Court passed an act "against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing." In this colony "slaves" testified against white men in court and, for a long time after 1652, served in the militia.[9] Again, beginning with 1700, Judge Sewall and the Quakers started their memorable work against slavery. Charles Sumner said concerning slavery in Massachusetts: "Her few slaves were merely for a term of years, or for life."[10]
The Bond of Liberty, adopted in 1641, evidently made provision for servitude.[11] Negroes were held as servants under this provision. During the entire colonial period until 1791, they were rated as polls, as, for example, in the tax laws, in 1718, which provided that "all Indian, negro and mulatto servants for a term of years were to be numbered and rated as Polls, and not as Personal Estate."[12]
Prior to 1700, moreover, Negroes had the status of servants in Pennsylvania. In the region of the Delaware River, which became a part of Pennsylvania, the Dutch had a few Negroes with them in 1636. In 1639, also, a number of Negroes worked under the New Netherlands Company on the South River.[13] It is not definitely known that these Negroes were servants, although the circumstances indicate that they were. The same is true of the Negroes in the employment of the Dutch during this very early period. Provision was apparently made for their gradual absorption by the free population. As late as 1663, there existed laws which "granted them a qualified form of freedom, working alternate weeks, one for themselves, one for the Company."[14] Among the Swedes, also, in the region of the Delaware, were a number of Negroes. Just after Rising had come to the region as head of the Swedish Company, in 1654, he issued an ordinance that "after a certain period Negroes should be absolutely free." In Penn's charter to the Free Society of Traders, in 1682, there was a provision that if the inhabitants "held blacks they should make them free at the end of fourteen years...." Benjamin Furley, also, vigorously opposed holding Negroes longer than eight years.[15] The Friends of Germantown in 1688, made strong protests against slavery; and in 1693, George Keith declared that the masters should let the Negroes go free after a reasonable term of service.[16] Later on, children of white mothers and slave fathers became servants for a term of years, and the same was true of the children of free Negro mothers and slave fathers.[17]
After 1700, Negro servants were a common and well-recognized class in Pennsylvania. Negroes who were "unable or unwilling to support themselves" were bound by the court for the term of one year.[18] All children of free Negroes were bound out until twenty-one or twenty-four years. Mulatto children "who were not slaves for life" were bound out "until they were twenty-eight years of age." The abolition act of 1780 provided among other things that "all future children of registered slaves should become servants until they were twenty-eight."[19] And again, Negroes manumitted could indenture themselves until twenty-eight.
Negro servants were generally subject to the laws which governed the white servitude; but they were subject further to other laws which gave to the Negro servants a status between that of the white servants and Negro slaves. Negro servants were apprenticed for a longer period than white servants; and such servants were object of a considerable interstate traffic, people from other states selling them into Pennsylvania. They were often apprenticed and generally given some form of freedom dues. So entrenched was Negro servitude here that in 1780 there were probably a greater number of servants in Pennsylvania than slaves.[20]
In Rhode Island Negro servitude preceded and passed into slavery.[21] Although as early as 1652 the practice of buying Negroes for service or slaves for life existed in this colony, this was not sanctioned by law. On the other hand, white servitude was clearly recognized in statute law of 1647.[22] In 1652 the legally established servitude, as well as the attitude of the colonists, undoubtedly influenced the passing of a law to prohibit slavery and provide for servitude. This law said: "Whereas, there is a common course practiced amongst English men to buy negers, to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever; 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 assighness longer than ten yeares, or until they come to bee twentie four yeares of age, if they bee taken in under fourteen, for the time of their cominge within the liberties of this Collinie. And at the end or terme of ten yeares to sett them free, as the manner is 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 bee enslaved to others for a long time, he or they shall forfeit to the Collonie forty pounds."[23] Although this law was enforced for a time, it soon became a dead letter, for after 1708, when slavery received sanction by statute, buying and selling Negroes was practiced generally.[24]
The first few Negroes in Connecticut were servants along with a few Indian and white servants. It was due, no doubt, to the paucity of the Negroes—there were in 1680 not above thirty in the colony—that they became servants. However, as this number increased, their status became gradually that of slaves by custom. Because of the fear of treachery from the Negro and Indian servants, the General Court, in 1680, ordered that "neither Indian nor negar servants shall be required to train, watch or ward in the Colony."[25] Evidently some of the servants very early had served out their time and had been freed, for by a law, in 1690, "Negro, mulatto, or Indian servants," "suspected persons" and free Negroes who were found wandering could be taken up and brought before a magistrate.[26] An act in 1711 made provision for the care of Negro servants and others who came to want after they had served out their time. "An act relating to slaves, and such in particular as shall happen to become servants for life, enacts that all slaves set at liberty by their owners, and all negro, mulatto, and Spanish Indians, who are servants to masters for time, in case they shall come to want after they shall be so set at liberty or the time of their service be expired, they shall be relieved at the cost of their masters." In fact, slavery of the "absolute, rigid kind" never existed to any extent in Connecticut.[27]