"Definite treaty of peace, between the united states of america and his britannic majesty.
"Article VII. * * * And His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any 'negroes or other property' of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, etc., etc., etc.* * *
"Done at Paris, Sept. 3, 1783.
"D Hartley. [l.s.]
"John Adams, [l.s.]
"B. Franklin, [l.s.]
"John Jay, [l.s.]"[609]
"Treaty of peace and amity, between his britannic majesty and the united states of america,
"[Ratified and confirmed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, Feb. 11, 1815.]
"Article I. * * * Shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any 'slaves or other private property.' * * * *
"Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, Dec. 24, 1814.
"Gambier, [l.s.]
"Henry Goulburn, [l.s.]
"William Adams, [l.s.]
"John Ouincy Adams, [l.s.]
"J.A. Bayard, [l.s.]
"H. Clay, [l.s.]
"Jona. Russell, [l.s.]
"Albert Gallatin. [l.s.]"[610]
It was not a difficult matter to retake Negroes captured by the enemy, and then treat them as prisoners of war. But no officer in the American army, no member of Congress, had the moral courage to proclaim that property ceased in a man the moment he donned the uniform of a Revolutionary soldier, and that all Negro soldiers captured by the enemy should be treated as prisoners of war. So, all through the war with Britain, the Negro soldier was liable to be claimed as property; and every bayonet in the army was at the command of the master to secure his property, even though it had been temporarily converted into an heroic soldier who had defended the country against its foes. The unprecedented spectacle was to be witnessed, of a master hunting his slaves under the flag of the nation. And at the close of hostilities many Negro soldiers were called upon to go back into the service of their masters; while few secured their freedom as a reward for their valor. The following letter of Gen. Washington, addressed to Brig.-Gen. Rufus Putnam, afterwards printed at Marietta, O., from his papers, indicates the regard the Father of his Country had for the rights of the master, though those rights were pushed into the camp of the army where many brave Negroes were found; and it also illustrates the legal strength of such a claim:—
"Head Quarters, Feb. 2, 1783.
"Sir,—Mr. Hobby having claimed as his property a negro man now serving in the Massachusetts Regiment, you will please to order a court of inquiry, consisting of five as respectable officers as can be found in your brigade, to examine the validity of the claim, the manner in which the person in question came into service, and the propriety of his being discharged or retained in service. Having inquired into the matter, with all the attending circumstances, they will report to you their opinion thereon; which you will report to me as soon as conveniently may be.
"I am, Sir, with great respect,
"Your most obedient servant,
"G. Washington.
"P.S.—All concerned should be notified to attend.
"Brig.-Gen. Putnam."
Enlistment in the army did not work a practical emancipation of the slave, as some have thought. Negroes were rated as chattel property by both armies and both governments during the entire war. This is the cold fact of history, and it is not pleasing to contemplate. The Negro occupied the anomalous position of an American slave and an American soldier. He was a soldier in the hour of danger, but a chattel in time of peace.
FOOTNOTES:
[588] Felt says, in History of Salem, vol. ii. p. 278: "Sept. 17 [1776]. At this date two slaves, taken on board of a prize, were to have been sold here; but the General Court forbid the sale, and ordered such prisoners to be treated like all others."
[589] Resolves, p. 14. Quoted by Dr. Moore from the original documents.