History of the Negro Race in America from 1619 to 1880 Volume I Part 29

[351] "Her correspondence was sought, and it extended to persons of distinction even in England, among whom may be named the Countess of Huntingdon, Whitefield, and the Earl of Dartmouth."--SPARKS'S _Was.h.i.+ngton_, vol. iii. p. 298, note.

[352] Sparks's Was.h.i.+ngton, vol iii. p. 299, note.

[353] This destroys the last hope I have nursed for nearly six years that the poem might yet come to light. Somehow I had overlooked this note.

[354] Sparks's Was.h.i.+ngton, vol iii. p. 288.

[355] Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 297, 298.

[356] Armistead's A Tribute to the Negro, pp. 460, 461.

[357] Dougla.s.s, vol. ii. p. 345, note.

[358] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 426.

[359] Pearce _vs._ Lisle, Ambler, 76.

[360] It may sound strangely in the ears of some friends and admirers of the gifted John Adams to hear now, after the lapse of many years, what he had to say of the position Otis took. His mild views on slavery were as deserving of scrutiny as those of the elder Quincy.

Mr. Adams says: "Nor were the poor negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia, or Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, ever a.s.serted the rights of negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was, and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught; and I have all my lifetime shuddered, and still shudder, at the consequences that may be drawn from such premises. Shall we say, that the rights of masters and servants clash, and can be decided only by force? I adore the idea of gradual abolitions! But who shall decide how fast or how slowly these abolitions shall be made?"

[361] Hildreth, vol. ii. pp. 564, 565.

[362] Coffin says, "In October of 1773, an action was brought against Richard Greenleaf, of Newburyport, by Caesar [Hendrick], a colored man, whom he claimed as his slave, for holding him in bondage. He laid the damages at fifty pounds. The council for the plaintiff, in whose favor the jury brought in their verdict and awarded him eighteen pounds'

damages and costs, was John Lowell, Esq., afterward Judge Lowell. This case excited much interest, as it was the first, if not the only one of the kind, that ever occurred in the county."

[363] Hildreth, vol. ii, pp. 550, 551.

[364] Drake, p. 729, note.

[365] I use the English spelling,--Sommersett.

[366] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 567.

[367] Bancroft, 12th ed. vol. iii. p. 412.

[368] Ancient Charters and Laws of Ma.s.s., pp. 745, 746.

[369] The following is from Felt's Salem, vol. ii. pp. 415, 416, and ill.u.s.trates the manner in which the law was complied with: "1713. Ann, relict of Governor Bradstreet, frees Hannah, a negro servant. 1717, Dec. 21. William and Samuel Upton, of this town, liberate Thomas, who has faithfully served their father, John Upton, of Reading. They give security to the treasurer, that they will meet all charges, which may accrue against the said black man. 1721, May 27. Elizur Keyser does the same for his servant, Cato, after four years more, and then the latter was to receive two suits of clothes.... 1758, June 5. The heirs of John Turner, having freed two servants, t.i.tus and Rebeckah, give bonds to the selectmen, that they shall be no public charge."

[370] John Adams's Works, vol. i. p. 51.

[371] Adams's Works, vol. i. p. 55.

[372] Drake, p. 525.

[373] The late Senator Sumner, in a speech delivered on the 28th of June, 1854, refers to this as "the earliest testimony from any official body against negro slavery." Even the weight of the senator's a.s.sertion cannot resist the facts of history. The "resolve"

instructing the "representatives" was never carried; but, on the contrary, the next Act was the law of 1703 restricting manumission!

[374] Journal H. of R., 15, 16. General Court Records, x. 282.

[375] Slavery in Ma.s.s., p. 106.

[376] It was thought to be lost for some years, until Dr. George H.

Moore secured a copy from George Brinley, Esq., of Hartford, Conn., and reproduced it in his Notes.

[377] History of Nantucket, p. 281.

[378] Coffin, p. 338; also History of Nantucket, pp. 279, 280.

[379] Coffin, p. 338.

CHAPTER XV.

THE COLONY OF Ma.s.sACHUSETTS,--CONTINUED.

1633-1775.

THE ERA OF PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION AGAINST SLAVERY.--BOSTON INSTRUCTS HER REPRESENTATIVES TO VOTE AGAINST THE SLAVE-TRADE.--PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY GOV. DUMMER AGAINST THE NEGROES, APRIL 13, 1723.--PERSECUTION OF THE NEGROES.--"SUING FOR LIBERTY."--LETTER OF SAMUEL ADAMS TO JOHN PICKERING, JUN., ON BEHALF OF NEGRO MEMORIALISTS--A BILL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE Pa.s.sES.--IS VETOED BY GOV. GAGE AND FAILS TO BECOME A LAW.

The time to urge legislation on the slavery question had come.

Cultivated at the first as a private enterprise, then fostered as a patriarchal inst.i.tution, slavery had grown to such gigantic proportions as to be regarded as an unwieldy evil, and subversive of the political stability of the colony. Men winked at the "day of its small things," and it grew. Little legislation was required to regulate it, and it began to take root in the social and political life of the people. The necessities for legislation in favor of slavery increased. Every year witnessed the enactment of laws more severe, until they appeared as scars upon the body of the laws of the colony. To erase these scars was the duty of the hour.

It was now 1755. More than a half-century of agitation and discussion had prepared the people for definite action. Manumission and pet.i.tion were the first methods against slavery. On the 10th of March, 1755, the town of Salem instructed their representative, Timothy Pickering, to pet.i.tion the General Court against the importation of slaves.[380]

The town of Worcester, in June, 1765, instructed their representative to "use his influence to obtain a law to put an end to that unchristian and impolitic practice of making slaves of the human species, and that he give his vote for none to serve in His Majesty's Council, who will use their influence against such a law."[381] The people of Boston, in the month of May, 1766, instructed their representatives as follows:--

"And for the total abolis.h.i.+ng of slavery among us, that you move for a law to prohibit the importation and the purchasing of slaves for the future."[382]

And in the following year, 1767, on the 16th of March, the question was put as to whether the town should adhere to its previous instructions in favor of the suppression of the slave-trade, and pa.s.sed in the affirmative. Nearly all the towns, especially those along the coast, those accessible by mails and newspapers, had recorded their vote, in some shape or other, against slavery. The pressure for legislation on the subject was great. The country members of the Legislature were almost a unit in favor of the pa.s.sage of a bill prohibiting the further importation of slaves. The opposition came from the larger towns, but the opposers were awed by the determined bearing of the enemies of the slave-trade. The scholars.h.i.+p, wealth, and piety of the colony were steadily ranging to the side of humanity.

On the 13th of March, 1767, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives "to prevent the _unwarrantable and unlawful_ Practice or Custom of inslaving Mankind in this Province, and the importation of slaves into the same."[383] It was read the first time, when a dilatory motion was offered that the bill lie over to the next session, which was decided in the negative. An amendment was offered to the bill, limiting it "to a certain time," which was carried; and the bill made a special order for a second reading on the following day. It was accordingly read on the 14th, when a motion was made to defer it for a third reading to the next "May session." The friends of the bill voted down this dilatory motion, and had the bill made the special order of the following Monday,--it now being Sat.u.r.day. On Sunday there must have been considerable lobbying done, as can be seen by the vote taken on Monday. After it was read, and the debate was concluded, it was "_Ordered that the Matter subside_, and that Capt.

Sheaffe, Col. Richmond, and Col. Bourne, be a Committee to bring in a Bill for laying a Duty of Impost on slaves importing into this Province."[384] This was a compromise, that, as will be seen subsequently, impaired the chances of positive and wholesome legislation against slavery. The original bill dealt a double blow: it struck at the slave-trade in the Province, and levelled the inst.i.tution already in existence. But some secret influences were set in operation, that are forever hidden from the searching eye of history; and the friends of liberty were bullied or cheated. There was no need of a bill imposing an impost tax on slaves imported, for such a law had been in existence for more than a half-century. If the tax were not heavy enough, it could have been increased by an amendment of a dozen lines. On the 17th the subst.i.tute was brought in by the special committee appointed by the Speaker the previous day. The rules requiring bills to be read on three several days were suspended, the bill ordered to a first and second reading, and then made the special order for eleven o'clock on the next day, Wednesday, the 18th. The motion to lie on the table until the "next May" was defeated. An amendment was then offered to limit the life of the bill to one year, which was carried, and the bill recommitted. On the afternoon of the same day it was read a third time, and placed on its pa.s.sage with the amendment. It pa.s.sed, was ordered engrossed, and was "sent up by Col.

Bowers, Col. Gerrish, Col. Leonard, Capt. Thayer, and Col. Richmond."

On the 19th of March it was read a first time in the council. On the 20th it was read a second time, and pa.s.sed to be engrossed "as taken into a new draft." When it reached the House for concurrence, in the afternoon of the same day, it was "Read and unanimously non-concurred, and the House adhere to their own vote, sent up for concurrence."[385]

Ma.s.sachusetts has gloried much and long in this Act to prohibit "the Custom of enslaving mankind;" but her silver-tongued orators and profound statesmen have never possessed the courage to tell the plain truth about its complete failure. From the first it was hara.s.sed by dilatory motions and amendments directed to its life; and the subst.i.tute, imposing an impost tax on imported slaves for one year, showed plainly that the friends of the original bill had been driven from their high ground. It was like applying for the position of a major-general, and then accepting the place of a corporal. It was as though they had asked for a fish, and accepted a serpent instead. It seriously lamed the cause of emanc.i.p.ation. It filled the slaves with gloom, and their friends with apprehension. On the other hand, those who profited by barter in flesh and blood laughed secretly to themselves at the abortive attempt of the anti-slavery friends to call a halt on the trade. They took courage. For ten weary years the voices lifted for the freedom of the slave were few, faint, and far between.

The bill itself has been lost. What its subject-matter was, is left to uncertain and unsatisfactory conjecture. All we know is from the t.i.tle just quoted. But it was, nevertheless, the only direct measure offered in the Provincial Legislature against slavery during the entire colonial period, and came nearest to pa.s.sage of any. But "a miss is as good as a mile!"

It was now the spring season of 1771. Ten years had flown, and no one in all the Province of Ma.s.sachusetts had had the courage to attempt legislation friendly to the slave. The scenes of the preceding year were fresh in the minds of the inhabitants of Boston. The blood of the martyrs to liberty was crying from the ground. The "red coats" of the British exasperated the people. The mailed hand, the remorseless steel finger, of English military power was at the throat of the rights of the people. The colony was gasping for independent political life. A terrible struggle for liberty was imminent. The colonists were about to contend for all that men hold dear,--their wives, their children, their homes, and their country. But while they were panting for an untrammelled existence, to plant a free nation on the sh.o.r.es of North America, they were robbing Africa every year of her sable children, and condemning them to a bondage more cruel than political subjugation. This glaring inconsistency imparted to reflecting persons a new impulse toward anti-slavery legislation.

In the spring of 1771 the subject of suppressing the slave-trade was again introduced into the Legislature. On the 12th of April a bill "_To prevent the Importation of slaves from Africa_" was introduced, and read the first time, and, upon the question "When shall the bill be read again?" was ordered to a second reading on the day following at ten o'clock. Accordingly, on the 13th, the bill was read a second time, and postponed till the following Tuesday morning. On the 16th it was recommitted. On the 19th of the same month a "Bill to prevent the Importation of Negro slaves into this Province" was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading "to-morrow at eleven o'clock." On the following day it was read a second time, and made the special order for three o'clock on the following Monday. On the 22d, Monday, it was read a third time, and placed upon its pa.s.sage and engrossed. On the 24th it pa.s.sed the House. When it reached the Council James Otis proposed an amendment, and a motion prevailed that the bill lie upon the table. But it was taken from the table, and the amendment of Otis was concurred in by the House. It pa.s.sed the Council in the latter part of April, but failed to receive the signature of the governor, on the ground that he was "not authorized by Parliament."[386] The same reason for refusing his signature was set up by Gen. Gage. Thus the bill failed. Gov. Hutchinson gave his reasons to Lord Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies. The governor thought himself restrained by "instructions" to colonial governors "from a.s.senting to any laws of a new and unusual nature." In addition to the foregoing, his Excellency doubted the lawfulness of the legislation to which the "scruple upon the minds of the people in many parts of the province"

would lead them; and that he had suggested the propriety of transmitting the bill to England to learn "his Majesty's pleasure"

thereabouts. Upon these reasons Dr. Moore comments as follows:--

"These are interesting and important suggestions. It is apparent that at this time there was no special instruction to the royal governor of Ma.s.sachusetts, forbidding his approval of acts against the slave-trade. Hutchinson evidently doubted the genuineness of the 'chief motive'

which was alleged to be the inspiration of the bill, the 'meerly moral' scruple against slavery; but his reasonings furnish a striking ill.u.s.tration of the changes which were going on in public opinion, and the gradual softening of the harsher features of slavery under their influence. The non-importation agreement throughout the Colonies, by which America was trying to thwart the commercial selfishness of her rapacious Mother, had rendered the provincial viceroys peculiarly sensitive to the slightest manifestation of a disposition to approach the sacred precincts of those prerogatives by which King and Parliament a.s.sumed to bind their distant dependencies: and the 'spirit of non-importation' which Ma.s.sachusetts had imperfectly learned from New York was equally offensive to them, whether it interfered with their cherished 'trade with Africa,' or their favorite monopolies elsewhere."