The sincerity with which this agreement was entered into may be seen by the action of the colonists at Norfolk, Virginia, where, in March, 1775, a brig arrived from the coast of Guinea, via Jamaica, with a number of slaves on board consigned to a merchant of that town. To use a modern phrase the vessel was boycotted by the committee, who published the following:
"TO THE FREEMEN OF VIRGINIA.
{ Committee Chamber,
{ Norfolk, March 6th, 1775.
"Trusting to your sure resentment against the enemies of your country, we, the committee, elected by ballot for the Borough of Norfolk, hold up for your just indignation Mr. John Brown, merchant, of this place.
"On Thursday, the 2nd of March, this committee were informed of the arrival of the brig Fanny, Capt. Watson, with a number of slaves for Mr. Brown; and, upon inquiry, it appeared they were shipped from Jamaica as his property, and on his account; that he had taken great pains to conceal their arrival from the knowledge of the committee; and that the shipper of the slaves, Mr. Brown's correspondent, and the captain of the vessel, were all fully apprised of the Continental prohibition against the article.
"From the whole of this transaction, therefore, we, the committee for Norfolk Borough, do give it as our unanimous opinion, that the said John Brown has wilfully and perversely violated the Continental Association, to which he had with his own hand subscribed obedience; and that, agreeable to the eleventh article, we are bound, forthwith, to publish the truth of the case, to the end that all such foes to the rights of British America may be publicly known and universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty, and that every person may henceforth break off all dealings with him."
This was the voice of a majority of the colonists, and those who dissented were regarded as Tories, and in favor of the crown as against the independence of the colonies, although there were many at the North and South who held slaves, and were yet loyal to the cause of the colonies; but the public sentiment was undoubtedly as strong against the institution as it was in 1864. But the Tories were numerous at the South, and by continually exciting the imagination of the whites by picturing massacre and insurrection on the part of the negros if they were armed, thwarted the effort of Col. Lauren's and of Congress to raise a "negro army" at the South. The leaders were favorable to it, but the colonists, for the reason cited, were distrustful of its practicability. Though a strong effort was made, as will be seen, the scare raised by the Tories prevented its success. Notwithstanding, hundreds of colored men, slave and free, at the South, not only followed the army but in every engagement took an active part on the side of the colonist. They were not enrolled and mustered into the army, it is true, but they rendered important service to the cause.
The caste prejudice now so strong in the country was then in its infancy. A white man at that time lived with a colored woman without fear of incurring the ostracism of his neighbors, and with the same impunity he lived with an Indian Squaw. So common was this practice, that in order to correct it laws were passed forbidding it. The treatment of the slaves was not what it came to be after the war, nor had the spirit of resentment been stifled in them as it was subsequently. Manifestations of their courage and manliness were not wanting when injustice was attempted to be practiced against them, consequently the spirit and courage with which they went into the conflict were quite equal to that of the whites, who were ever ready to applaud them for deeds of daring. It is only through this medium that we have discovered the meed of praise due the little Phalanx, which linked its fortune with the success of the American army, and of whom the following interesting facts can now be recorded.
It is well for the negro and for his descendants in America, cosmopolitan as it is, that his race retains its distinctive characteristics, color and features, otherwise they would not have, as now, a history to hand down to posterity so gloriously patriotic and interesting. His amalgamation with other races is attributable to the relation which it bore to them, although inter-marriage was not allowed. By the common consent of his enslavers, he was allowed to live clandestinely with the women of his own color; sometimes from humane considerations, sometimes from a standpoint of gain, but always as a slave or a subject of the slave code. Reduced from his natural state of freedom by his misfortune in tribal war, to that of a slave, and then transported by the consent of his captors and enemies to these shores, and sold into an unrequited bondage, the fire of his courage,—like that of other races similarly situated, without hope of liberty; doomed to toil,—slackened into an apathetic state, and seeming willing servitude, which produced a resignation to fate from 1619 to 1770, more than a century and a half. At the latter date, for the first time in the history of what is now the United States, the negro, inspired with the love of liberty, aimed a blow at the authority that held him in bondage. In numerous instances, when the Indians attacked the white settlers, particularly in the Northern colonies, negroes were summoned and took part in the defense of the settlements.
As early as 1652, the militia law of Massachusetts required negroes, Scotchmen and Indians,—the indentured slaves of Cromwell, who encountered his army at the battle of Dunbar,—to train in the militia. Nor was it an uncommon occurrence for them to be manumitted for meritorious and courageous action in defending their masters' families, often in the absence of the master, when attacked by the red men of the woods. It was not infrequent to find the negro as a sentinel at the meeting-house door; or serving as a barricade for the master's mansion. The Indian was more of a terror to him than the boa-constrictor; though slaves, they knew that if captured by the Indians their fate would be the same as that of the white man; consequently they fought with a desperation equal to that of the whites, against the common enemy. So accustomed did they become to the use of arms, that one of the first acts of the settlers after the Indians were driven from the forest, was to disarm and forbid negroes keeping or handling fire-arms and weapons of every sort. This was done from a sense of self-preservation and fear that the negroes might (and many did) attempt to revenge themselves when cruelly treated, or rise in mutiny and massacre the whites.
