Read Ebook: Slavery in Pennsylvania A Dissertation Submitted to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1910 by Turner Edward Raymond

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 162 lines and 44127 words, and 4 pages

The third period, from 1726 to 1780, is distinguished more because of the lack of important legislation about the negro than through any marked character of its own. The outlines of the colony's slave code had now been drawn, and no further constructive work was done. There is, however, one class of laws which may be assigned to this period, since the majority of them fall chronologically within its limits, though they are scarcely more characteristic of it than they are of either of the two periods preceding. All of these laws imposed restrictions upon the actions of negro slaves in matters in which white people were restricted also, but the restrictions were embodied in special sections of the laws, because of the negro's inability to pay a fine: the law imposing corporal punishment upon the slave, whenever it exacted payment in money or imprisonment from others.

Thus, an act forbidding the use of fireworks without the governor's permission, states that the slave instead of being imprisoned shall be publicly whipped. Another provides that if a slave set fire to any woodlands or marshes he shall be whipped not exceeding twenty-one lashes. As far back as 1700 whipping had been made the punishment of a slave who carried weapons without his master's permission. In 1750-1751 participation in a horse-race or shooting-match entailed first fifteen lashes, and then twenty-one, together with six days' imprisonment for the first offense, and ten days' imprisonment thereafter. In 1760 hunting on Indians' lands or on other people's lands, shooting in the city, or hunting on Sunday, were forbidden under penalty of whipping up to thirty-one lashes. In 1750-1751 the penalty for offending against the night watch in Philadelphia was made twenty-one lashes and imprisonment in the work-house for three days at hard labor; for the second offence, thirty-one lashes and six days. Sometimes it was provided that a slave might be punished as a free man, if his master would stand for him. Thus a slave offending against the regulations for wagoners was to be whipped, or fined, if his master would pay the fine.

So far the slave was under the regulation of the state. He was also subject to the regulation of his owner, who, in matters concerning himself and not directly covered by laws, could enforce obedience by corporal punishment. This was sometimes administered at the public whipping-post, the master sending an order for a certain number of lashes. But the slave was not given over absolutely into the master's power. If he had to obey the laws of the state, he could also expect the protection of the state. The master could not starve him, nor overwork him, nor torture him. Against these things he could appeal to the public authorities. Moreover public opinion was powerfully against them. If a master killed his slave the law dealt with him as though his victim were a white man. It is not probable, to be sure, that the sentence was often carried out, but such cases did not often arise.

Such was the legal status of the slave in Pennsylvania. Before 1700 it was ill defined, but probably much like that of the servant, having only the distinctive incident of perpetual service, and the developing incident of the transmission of servile condition to offspring. Gradually it became altogether different. To the slave now appertained a number of incidents of lower status. He was tried in separate courts, subject to special judges, and punished with different penalties. Admixture with white people was sternly prohibited. He was subject to restrictions upon movement, conduct, and action. He could be corrected with corporal punishment. The slave legislation of Pennsylvania involved discriminations based both upon inferior status, and what was regarded as inferior race. Nevertheless it will be shown that in most respects the punishments and restrictions imposed upon negro slaves were either similar to those imposed upon white servants, or involved discriminations based upon the inability of the slave to pay a fine, and upon the fact that mere imprisonment punished the master alone. Moreover, what harshness there was must be ascribed partly to the spirit of the times, which made harsher laws for both white men and black men. The slave code almost never comprehended any cruel or unusual punishments. As a legal as well as a social system slavery in Pennsylvania was mild.

There is an evident distinction intended in the following: "A List of the Tydable psons James Sanderling and slave John Test and servant." One follows the other. MS. Rec. Court at Upland, Nov. 13, 1677. In 1686 the price of a negro, 30 pounds, named in a law-suit, is probably that of a slave. MS. Minute Book. Common Pleas and Quarter Sessions. Bucks Co., 1684-1730, pp. 56, 57. A will made in 1694 certainly disposed of the within mentioned negroes for life. "I do hereby give ... pow^r ... to my s^d Exers ... eith^r to lett or hire out my five negroes ... and pay my s^d wife the one half of their wages Yearly during her life or Oth^rwise give her such Compensaon for her int^rest therein as shee and my s^d Exs shall agree upon and my will is that the other half of their s^d wages shall be equally Devided between my aforsd Children, and after my sd wife decease my will also is That the sd negroes Or such of them and their Offsprings as are then alive shall in kind or value be equally Devided between my s^d Children" ... Will of Thomas Lloyd. MS. Philadelphia Wills, Book A, 267.

MSS., Domestic Letters, 17.

See below, p. 65.

I have found no instance where a negro was indisputably a servant in the early period. The court records abound in notices of white servants.

See below, p. 111.

"For that hee ... contrary to the Lawes of the Governmt and Contrary to his Masters Consent hath ... got wth child a certaine molato wooman Called Swart anna" ... MS. Rec. Court at Upland, 19; Penn MSS. Papers relating to the Three Lower Counties, 1629-1774, p. 193; MS. Minutes Abington Monthly Meeting, 27 1st mo., 1693. "David Lewis Constable of Haverfoord Returned A Negro man of his And A white woman for haveing A Baster Childe ... the negroe said she Intised him and promised him to marry him: she being examined, Confest the same: ... the Court ordered that she shall Receive Twenty one laishes on her beare Backe ... and the Court ordered the negroe never more to meddle with any white woman more uppon paine of his life." MS. Min. Chester Co. Courts, 1697-1710, p. 24.

MS. Ancient Rec. of Phila., Nov. 4, 1722.

Apparently such a marriage had occurred in 1722. MS. Ancient Rec. Phila., Nov. 4, 1722, which mention "the Clandestine mariage of M^r Tuthil's Negro and Katherine Williams." The petitioner, who was imprisoned for abetting the marriage, concludes: "I have Discover'd who maried the foresd Negroe, and shall acquaint your hon^."

See below.

"The Grand Inquest ... do present that whereas there has been Divers Rioters ... and the peace of our Lord the King Disturbers, by Divers Infants, bond Servants, and Negros, within this City after it is Duskish ... that Care may be taken to Suppress the unruly Negroes of this City accompanying to gether on the first Day of the weeke, and that they may not be Suffered to walk the Streets in Companys after it is Darke without their Masters Leave" ... MS. Ancient Rec. of Phila., Apr. 4, 1717.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF SLAVERY.

The mildness of slavery in Pennsylvania impressed every observer. Acrelius said that negroes were treated better there than anywhere else in America. Peter Kalm said that compared with the condition of white servants their condition possessed equal advantages except that they were obliged to serve their whole life-time without wages. Hector St. John Cr?vecoeur declared that they enjoyed as much liberty as their masters, that they were in effect part of their masters' families, and that, living thus, they considered themselves happier than many of the lower class of whites. There is good reason for believing these statements, since a careful study of the sources shows that generally masters used their negroes kindly and with moderation.

Living in a land of plenty the slaves were well fed and comfortably clothed. They had as good food as the white servants, says one traveller, and another says as good as their masters. In 1759 the yearly cost of the food of a slave was reckoned at about twenty per cent. of his value. Likewise they were well clad, their clothes being furnished by the masters. That clothes were a considerable item of expense is shown by the old household accounts and diaries. Acrelius computed the yearly cost at five per cent. of a slave's value. In the newspaper advertisements for runaways occur particularly full descriptions of their dress. Almost always they have a coat or jacket, shoes, and stockings. It is true that when they ran away they generally took the best they had, if not all they had; but making due allowance it seems certain that they were well clad, as an advertiser declared.

As to shelter, since the climate and economy of Pennsylvania never gave rise to a plantation life, rows of negro cabins and quarters for the hands never became a distinctive feature. Slaves occupied such lodgings as were assigned to white servants, generally in the house of the master. This was doubtless not the case where a large number was held. They can hardly have been so accommodated by Jonathan Dickinson of Philadelphia, who had thirty-two.

In the matter of service their lot was a fortunate one. There seems to be no doubt that they were treated much more kindly than the negroes in the West Indies, and that they were far happier than the slaves in the lower South. It is said that they were not obliged to labor more than white people, and, although this may hardly have been so, and although, indeed, there is occasional evidence that they were worked hard, yet for the most part it is clear that they were not overworked. The advertisements of negroes for sale show, as might be expected, that most of the slaves were either house-servants or farm-hands. Nevertheless the others were engaged in a surprisingly large number of different occupations. Among them were bakers, blacksmiths, brick-layers, brush-makers, carpenters, coopers, curriers, distillers, hammermen, refiners, sail-makers, sailors, shoe-makers, tailors, and tanners. The negroes employed at the iron-furnaces received special mention. The women cooked, sewed, did house-work, and at times were employed as nurses. When the service of negroes was needed they were often hired from their masters, but as a rule they were bought. They were frequently trusted and treated almost like members of the family.

When the day's work was over the negroes of Pennsylvania seem to have had time of their own which they were not too tired to enjoy. Some no doubt found recreation in their masters' homes, gossipping, singing, and playing on rude instruments. Many sought each other's company and congregated together after nightfall. In Philadelphia, at any rate, during the whole colonial period, crowds of negroes infesting the streets after dark behaved with such rough and boisterous merriment that they were a nuisance to the whole community. At times negroes were given days of their own. They were allowed to go from one place to another, and were often permitted to visit members of their families in other households. Moreover, holidays were not grudged them. It is said that in Philadelphia at the time of fairs, the blacks to the number of a thousand of both sexes used to go to "Potter's Field," and there amuse themselves, dancing, singing, and rejoicing, in native barbaric fashion.

If, now, from material comfort we turn to the matter of the moral and intellectual well-being of the slaves, we find that considering the time, surprising efforts were made to help them. In Pennsylvania there seems never to have been opposition to improving them. Not much was done, it is true, and perhaps most of the negroes were not reached by the efforts made. It must be remembered, however, what violent hostility mere efforts aroused in some other places.

There is the statement of a careful observer that masters desired by all means to hinder their negroes from being instructed in the doctrines of Christianity, and to let them live on in pagan darkness. This he ascribes to a fear that negroes would grow too proud on seeing themselves upon a religious level with their masters. Some weight must be attached to this account, but it is probable that the writer was roughly applying to Pennsylvania what he had learned in other places, for against his assertion much specific evidence can be arrayed.

The attention of the Friends was directed to this subject very early. The counsel of George Fox was explicit. Owners were to give their slaves religious instruction and teach them the Gospel. In 1693 the Keithian Quakers when advising that masters should hold their negroes only for a term of years, enjoined that during such time they should give these negroes a Christian education. In 1700 Penn appears to have been able to get a Monthly Meeting established for them, but of the meeting no record has come down. As to what was the actual practice of Friends in this matter their early records give meagre information. It seems certain that negroes were not allowed to participate in their meetings, though sometimes they were taken to the meeting-houses. It is probable that in great part the religious work of the Friends among slaves was confined to godly advice and reading. As to the amount and quality of such advice, the well known character of the Friends leaves no doubt.

The Moravians, who were most zealous in converting negroes, did not reach a great number in Pennsylvania, because few were held by them; nevertheless they labored successfully, and received negroes amongst them on terms of religious equality. This also the Lutherans did to some extent, negroes being baptized among them. It is in the case of the Episcopalians, however, that the most definite knowledge remains. The records of Christ Church show that the negroes who were baptized made no inconsiderable proportion of the total number baptized in the congregation. For a period of more than seventy years such baptisms are recorded, and are sometimes numerous. At this church, also, there was a minister who had special charge of the religious instruction of negroes. It is possible that something may have been accomplished by missionaries and itinerant exhorters. This was certainly so when Whitefield visited Pennsylvania in 1740. Both he and his friend Seward noted with peculiar satisfaction the results which they had attained. Work of some value was also done by wandering negro exhorters, who, appearing at irregular intervals, assembled little groups and preached in fields and orchards.

Something was also accomplished for negroes in the maintenance of family life. In 1700 Penn, anxious to improve their moral condition, sent to the Assembly a bill for the regulation of their marriages, but much to his grief this was defeated. In the absence of such legislation they came under the law which forbade servants to marry during their servitude without the master's consent. Doubtless in this matter there was much of the laxity which is inseparable from slavery, but it is said that many owners allowed their slaves to marry in accordance with inclination, except that a master would try to have his slaves marry among themselves. The marriage ceremony was often performed just as in the case of white people, the records of Christ Church containing many instances. The children of these unions were taught submission to their parents, who were indulged, it is said, in educating, cherishing, and chastising them. Stable family life among the slaves was made possible by the conditions of slavery in Pennsylvania, there being no active interchange of negroes. When they were bought or sold families were kept together as much as possible.

In one matter connected with religious observances race prejudice was shown: negroes were not as a rule buried in the cemeteries of white people. In some of the Friends' records and elsewhere there is definite prohibition. They were often buried in their masters' orchards, or on the edge of woodlands. The Philadelphia negroes were buried in a particular place outside the city.

Under the kindly treatment accorded them the negroes of colonial Pennsylvania for the most part behaved fairly well. It is true that there is evidence that crime among them assumed grave proportions at times, while the records of the special courts and items in the newspapers show that there occurred murder, poisoning, arson, burglary, and rape. In addition there was frequent complaint about tumultuous assembling and boisterous conduct, and there was undoubtedly much pilfering. Moreover the patience of many indulgent masters was tried by the shiftless behavior and insolent bearing of their slaves. Yet the graver crimes stand out in isolation rather than in mass; and it is too much to expect an entire absence of the lesser ones. The white people do not seem to have regarded their negroes as dangerous. Almost never were there efforts for severe repression, and a slave insurrection seems hardly to have been thought of. There are no statistics whatever on which to base an estimate, but judging from the relative frequency of notices it seems probable that crime among the negroes of Pennsylvania during the slavery period--no doubt because they were under better control--was less than at any period thereafter.

But there was a misdemeanor of another kind: negro slaves frequently ran away. Fugitives are mentioned from the first, and there is hardly a copy of any of the old papers but has an advertisement for some negro at large. These notices sometimes advise that the slave has stolen from his master; often that he has a pass, and is pretending to be a free negro; and occasionally that a free negro is suspected of harboring him.

The law against harboring was severe and was strictly enforced. Anyone might take up a suspicious negro; while whoever returned a runaway to his master was by law entitled to receive five shillings and expenses. It was always the duty of the local authorities to apprehend suspects. When this occurred the procedure was to lodge the negro in jail, and advertise for the master, who might come, and after proving title and paying costs, take him away. Otherwise the negro was sold for a short time to satisfy jail fees, advertised again, and finally either set at liberty or disposed of as pleased the local court.

This fleeing from service on the part of negro slaves, while varying somewhat in frequency, was fairly constant during the whole slavery period, increasing as the number of slaves grew larger. During the British occupation of Philadelphia, however, it assumed such enormous proportions that the number of negroes held there was permanently lowered. Notwithstanding, then, the kindly treatment they received, slaves in Pennsylvania ran away. Nevertheless it is significant that during the same period white servants ran away more than twice as often.

Many traits of daily life and marks of personal appearance which no historian has described, are preserved in the advertisements of the daily papers. Almost every negro seems to have had the smallpox. To have done with this and the measles was justly considered an enhancement in value. Some of the negroes kidnapped from Africa still bore traces of their savage ancestry. Not a few spoke several languages. Generally they were fond of gay dress. Some carried fiddles when they ran away. One had made considerable money by playing. Many little hints as to character appear. Thus Mona is full of flattery. Cuff Dix is fond of liquor. James chews abundance of tobacco. Stephen has a "sower countenance"; Harry, "meek countenance"; Rachel, "remarkable austere countenance"; Dick is "much bandy legged"; Violet, "pretty, lusty, and fat." A likely negro wench is sold because of her breeding fast. One negro says that he has been a preacher among the Indians. Two others fought a duel with pistols. A hundred years has involved no great change in character.

Finally, on the basis of information drawn from rare and miscellaneous sources it becomes apparent that in slavery times there was more kindliness and intimacy between the races than existed afterwards. In those days many slaves were treated as if part of the master's family: when sick they were nursed and cared for; when too old to work they were provided for; and some were remembered in the master's will. Negroes did run away, and numbers of them desired to be free, but when manumission came not a few of them preferred to stay with their former owners. It was the opinion of an advocate of emancipation that they were better off as slaves than they could possibly be as freemen.

Such was slavery in Pennsylvania. If on the one hand there was the chance of families being sold apart; if there was seen the cargo, the slave-drove, the auction sale; it must be remembered that such things are inseparable from the institution of slavery, and that on the other hand they were rare, and not to be weighed against the positive comfort and well-being of which there is such abundant proof. If ever it be possible not to condemn modern slavery, it might seem that slavery as it existed in Pennsylvania in the eighteenth century was a good, probably for the masters, certainly for the slaves. The fact is that it existed in such mitigated form that it was impossible for it to be perpetuated. Whenever men can treat their slaves as men in Pennsylvania treated them, they are living in a moral atmosphere inconsistent with the holding of slaves. Nothing can then preserve slavery but paramount economic needs. In Pennsylvania, since such needs were not paramount, slavery was doomed.

FOOTNOTES:

When one of Christopher Marshall's white servants "struck and kickt" his negro woman, he "could scarcely refrain from kicking him out of the House &c &c &c." MS. Remembrancer, E, July 22, 1779.

Acrelius, 169.

"Thou Knowest Negro Peters Ingenuity In making for himself and playing on a fiddle w^ out any assistance as the thing in them is Innocent and diverting and may keep them from worse Employmt I have to Encourage in my Service promist him one from Engld therefore buy and bring a good Strong well made Violin w^ 2 or 3 Sets of spare Gut for the Suitable Strings get somebody of skill to Chuse and by it".... MS. Isaac Norris, Letter Book, 1719, p. 185.

See above, pp. 32-34.

MS. Records of Christ Church, Phila., I, 19, 43, 44, 46, 49, 132, 168, 271, 273, 274, 276, 277, 280, 281, 282, 283, 288, 293, 306, 312, 314, 333, 337, 341, 342, 344, 352, 353, 359, 371, 379, 383, 388, 392, 397, 399, 416, 440, 441. Baptisms were very frequent in the years 1752 and 1753. Very many of the slaves admitted were adults, whereas in the case of free negroes at the same period most of the baptisms were of children.

"This afternoon a Negro man from Cecil County maryland preached in orchard opposite to ours. there was Sundry people, they said he spoke well for near an hour." MS. Ch. Marshall's Remembrancer, E, July 13, 1779.

This was not always the case. The MS. Rec. of Sandy Bank Cemetery, Delaware Co., contains the names of two negroes.

As shown by the very careless enforcement of the special regulations.

"A negro man and a White Woman servant being taken up ... and brought before John Simcocke Justice in Commission for runaways Who upon examination finding they had noe lawful Passe Comitted them to Prison" ... MS. Court Rec. Penna. and Chester Co., 1681-88, p. 75; MS. New Castle Ct. Rec., Liber A, 158 ; MS. Minutes Ct. Quarter Sess. Bucks Co., 1684-1730, p. 138 ; MS. Minutes Chester Co. Courts, 1681-1697, p. 222 . For the continual going away of Christopher Marshall's "Girl Poll," see his Remembrancer, vol. D.

So I judge from statistics which I have compiled from the advertisements in the newspapers.

THE BREAKING UP OF SLAVERY--MANUMISSION.

In Pennsylvania the disintegration of slavery began as soon as slavery was established, for there were free negroes in the colony at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Manumission may have taken place earlier than this, for in 1682 an owner made definite promise of freedom to his negro. The first indisputable case now known, however, occurred in 1701, when a certain Lydia Wade living in Chester County freed her slaves by testament. In the same year William Penn on his return to England liberated his blacks likewise. Judging from the casual and unexpected references to free negroes which come to light from time to time, it seems probable that other masters also bestowed freedom. At any rate the status of the free negro had come to be recognized about this time as one to be protected by law, for when in 1703 Antonio Garcia, a Spanish mulatto, was brought to Philadelphia as a slave, he appealed to the provincial Council, and presently was set at liberty. In 1717 the records of Christ Church mention Jane, a free negress, who was baptized there with her daughter.

This freeing of negroes at so early a time in the history of the colony is sufficiently remarkable. It might be expected that manumission would have been rare; and, indeed, the records are very few at first. Nevertheless a law passed in 1725-1726 would indicate that the practice was by no means unusual.

It is not possible.to say what was the immediate cause of the passing of that part of the act which refers to manumission. It may have been the growth of a class of black freemen, or it may have been the desire to check manumission; but it was probably neither of these things so much as it was the practice of masters who set free their infirm slaves when the labor of those slaves was no longer remunerative. This practice together with the usual shiftlessness of most of the freedmen makes the resulting legislation intelligible enough. It provided that thereafter if any master purposed to set his negro free, he should obligate himself at the county court to secure the locality in which the negro might reside from any expense occasioned by the sickness of the negro or by his inability to support himself. If a negro received liberty by will, recognizance should be entered into by the executor immediately. Without this no negro was to be deemed free. The security was fixed at thirty pounds.

Whatever may have been the full purpose of this statute, there can be no question that it did check manumission to a certain extent. A standing obligation of thirty pounds, which might at any moment become an unpleasant reality, when added to the other sacrifices which freeing a slave entailed, was probably sufficient to discourage many who possessed mildly good intentions. Several times it was protested that the amount was so excessive as to check the beneficence of owners: and on one occasion it was computed that the thirty pounds required did not really suffice to support such negroes as became charges, but that a different method and a smaller sum would have secured better results. The burden to owners was no doubt felt very grievously during the latter half of the eighteenth century, when manumission was going on so actively, and it is known that the Assembly was asked to give relief. Nevertheless nothing was done until 1780 when the abolition act swept from the statute-books all previous legislation about the negro, slave as well as free.

In spite of the obstacles created by the statute of 1725-1726, the freeing of negroes continued. In 1731 John Baldwin of Chester ordered in his will that his negress be freed one year after his decease. Two years later Ralph Sandiford is said to have given liberty to all of his slaves. In 1742 Judge Langhorne in Bucks County devised freedom to all of his negroes, between thirty and forty in number. In 1744 by the will of John Knowles of Oxford, negro James was to be made free on condition that he gave security to the executors to pay the thirty pounds if required. Somewhat before this time John Harris, the founder of Harrisburg, set free the faithful negro Hercules, who had saved his life from the Indians. In 1746 Samuel Blunson manumitted his slaves at Columbia. During this period negroes were occasionally sent to the Moravians, who gave them religious training, baptized them, and after a time set them at liberty. During the following years the records of some of the churches refer again and again to free negroes who were married in them, baptized in them, or who brought their children to them to be baptized. At an early date there was a sufficient number of free black people in Pennsylvania to attract the attention of philanthropists; and it is known that Whitefield as early as 1744 took up a tract of land partly with the intention of making a settlement of free negroes. Up to this time, however, manumission probably went on in a desultory manner, hampered by the large security required, and practised only by the most ardent believers in human liberty. The middle of the eighteenth century marked a great turning-point.

The southeastern part of Pennsylvania, in which most of the negroes were located, was peopled largely by Quakers, who in many localities were the principal slave-owners, and who at different periods during the eighteenth century probably held from a half to a third of all the slaves in the colony. But they were never able to reconcile this practice entirely with their religious belief and from the very beginning it encountered strong opposition. As this opposition is really part of the history of abolition in Pennsylvania it will be treated at length in the following chapter. Here it is sufficient to say that from 1688 a long warfare was carried on, for the most part by zealous reformers who gradually won adherents, until about 1750 the Friends' meetings declared against slavery, and the members who were not slave-owners undertook to persuade those who still owned negroes to give them up.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet