Between Slavery and Freedom (22 page)

Freedom was not without a deeper meaning for black people in the United States. It could not possibly be. Generations of black men and women had endured so much to achieve it. What they had hoped for, though, was that freedom and equality would eventually become one and the same. That had not happened in colonial days. It had not happened as the colonies declared their independence from Britain and committed themselves to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It had not happened in the years since independence. Somehow, liberty had never translated into “the pursuit of happiness” for the nation's free people of color. They had been free, but they had not been citizens. When the United States Supreme Court ruled in the
Dred Scott
case that they were not and never had been citizens, that was true—by and large. The justices had also predicted, though, that black people would never be citizens and that freedom would make no difference to their status. The decades after Emancipation would put that to the test. All black people, not just a percentage of the black population, were free. Half-free or fully free, stranded somewhere between “slave” and “citizen”—that had been the reality for free black people for centuries. Now that all were free, it would become the measure of the nation's commitment to liberty to determine whether a separate “black freedom” would disappear and give way simply to freedom for all.

Documents

Laws on Black Freedom in Colonial Virginia and Massachusetts

The English colonies of Virginia and Massachusetts both recognized slavery and placed limitations on black freedom, but they did so in rather different ways. In its 1641 “Body of Liberties” Massachusetts sanctioned the enslavement of all “l
awful
captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us.” What happened in Virginia, though, was a step-by-step defining of who was and was not
free
.
By the 1660s, Virginia law declared, among other things, that a child inherited the status of his or her mother (1662) and that slaves who became Christians were still slaves (1667). In neither colony did the authorities want the slaves to get their freedom. Virginia lawmakers took action in 1691 by approving “An Act for suppressing outlying slaves.” In 1703, Massachusetts passed “An Act Relating to Molato and Negro Slaves.” Both penalized owners who emancipated their slaves, and Virginia punished the newly-freed slaves for becoming free by forcing them into exile.

Virginia

Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared . . . that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother.

Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the Charity and piety of their owners made partakers of the blessed
sacrament of baptism, should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted and declared . . . that the conferring of baptism does not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom.

And forasmuch as great inconveniences may happen to this country by the setting of negroes and mulattoes free, by their either entertaining negro slaves from their masters' service, or receiving stolen goods, or being grown old bringing a charge upon the country; for prevention thereof . . . it is hereby enacted, That no negro or mulatto be . . . set free by any person or persons whatsoever, unless such person or persons, their heirs, executors or administrators pay for the transportation of such negro or negroes out of the country within six months after . . . setting them free.

Source: William Waller Hening, comp.
, The Statutes at Large, Being a
Collection
of all the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619
(Richmond: R. & W. & G. Bartow, 1819–23), vol. 2, pp. 170, 260; vol. 3, p. 88.

Massachusetts

Whereas great charge[s] and inconveniences have arisen to divers towns and places, by the releasing and setting at liberty [of] molato
[sic]
and negro slaves; for prevention whereof for the future,—Be it declared and enacted by His Excellency the Governour
[sic]
, Council and Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same,

[Sect. 1.] That no molato or negro slave shall hereafter be . . . set free, until sufficient security be given to the treasurer of the town or place where such person dwells, in a valuable sum, not less than fifty pounds, to . . . indempnify
[sic]
the town or place from all charge for or about such molato or negro, to be . . . set at liberty, in case he or she by sickness, lameness, or otherwise, be rendered uncapable
[sic]
to support him- or herself.

Source:
The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of
Massachusett
s Bay
(Boston: Wright and Potter, Printers to the State, 1869), vol. 1, p. 519.

Passing as Free (1736–1773)

These notices for the return of runaway slaves reveal more than the people who posted them ever intended. The individual slave owners simply wanted their “
property”
back. What the advertisements tell us, though, is that a small but
growing
free black community existed by the early eighteenth century in virtually every colony, that some slaves hoped to take advantage of that fact and pass as free, and that free people often helped friends and family members who were still enslaved. They also speak to punishments meted out, physical disabilities overcome, skills acquired, and careful preparations put into plotting escapes.

this
is to forewarn all Persons of entertaining the blind Negro called America, well known about Philadelphia, who is not free as he sometimes pretends to be, but belongs to William Morgan, in Second-Street.

Source:
Pennsylvania Gazette
, March 18, 1736

Run-away on Friday Afternoon . . . a likely Negro Man named Jacob, belonging to George Wray, at Albany; the said Negro is about 24 Years old . . . has a Scar on the right Side of his Forehead, one on his left Temple . . . and another on the Crown of his Head . . . a lump on each shoulder by being flogg'd some Time past . . . speaks good English, some French, and a little Spanish. . . . [He is] of an insinuating Address, very apt to feign plausible Stories, and may perhaps call himself a free Negro. . . . He had on when he went away, a Blanket Coat, Green Leggings and Moccasins, Buckskin Breeches and a red Worsted Cap. It is supposed he had with him, a black and white spotted Dog, answering to the Name of Venture.

Source:
New York Mercury
, March 5, 1764

Run away from my plantation on Indian Land . . . a
mulatto fellow
called
virginia john. . . .
He is a very artful fellow, and may endeavor to pass himself for a free mulatto, and assumes different names as it suits him. . . . Masters of vessels are desired to take notice . . . as he may attempt to impose on them by his artfulness, in order to get off from this province.

Source:
Georgia Gazette
, November 22, 1764

Sussex County, on [the] Delaware, Three Run Mills

Ran away . . . a Mulatto Slave, named
harry
, about 40 years of age. . . . He was bred a miller, and understands very well how to manufacture flour, and can invoice the same; is much given to strong drink, and playing on the violin; understands the carpenter's and mill-wright's business middling well. . . . [T]he said fellow has a free Mulatto wife, named Peg, and two children. I expect they will endeavor to get together . . . [and] get to the province of New-Jersey. It is imagined said Mulatto has a pass.

Source:
Pennsylvania Chronicle
, June 27–July 4, 1768

Ran away from the Subscriber, on Friday the 9th day of July . . . a Mulatto Woman Slave named
Violetas
, aged about 32 Years, of short Stature. . . . She had with her when she went away a Chintz Gown . . . a Couple of Quilts . . . two Pair of Shoes, and divers other Things—If any Person shall inform where she is, that her Master may have her again, they shall be well rewarded. . . . N.B. It is suspected she is in Company with one
Henry T
raveller
, a free Negro.

Bridgewater, July 12, 1773,

abia keith

Source:
Boston Evening Post
, July 19, 1773

Free Black People in Colonial Pennsylvania and Rhode Island (1751–1770)

Slavery flourished in the North in the colonial era just as it did in the South, and it flourished in urban centers as well as in the countryside. Much to the annoyance of white people, though, at least some slaves managed to gain their freedom. Local lawmakers responded to complaints about the presence and the activities of free blacks. To begin with, whites insisted that there were simply too many of them. In Philadelphia by 1751, the date of the first law quoted here, there were perhaps 200, compared to several thousand slaves. In the entire colony of Rhode Island by 1770 there were not very many more. However, numbers really did not matter. Whites persisted in regarding free blacks collectively as “an idle, slothful people,” and they demanded action to keep them firmly under control. If they could not
re-enslave
them—and binding them out came very close to re-enslavement—whites wanted free blacks to be told very firmly what they could and could not do. The Pe
nnsylvania
law also tried to restrict the further growth of the free black
community
by making it prohibitively expensive for an owner to manumit a slave.

As frequent Complaints have been lately made to the Magistrates of the City of Philadelphia, that Negroes, and other Blacks, either Free, or under Pretence of Freedom, have . . . settled in the City . . . and have taken Houses, Rooms, and Cellars, for their Habitations, where great disorders often happen, especially in the Night time; and Servants, Slaves, and other idle and vagrant Persons are entertained [and] corrupted. . . . And whereas ‘tis found by Experience, that free Negroes are an idle, slothful People; and often prove burthensome to the Neighbourhood, and afford
ill Examples to other Negroes: Therefore be it enacted . . . That if any Master or Mistress shall . . . set free any Negroe
[sic]
, he or she shall enter into Recognizance . . . with sufficient Sureties, in the Sum of
Thirty Pounds
, to secure and indemnify the City, Township or County where he resides, from any Charge or Incumbrance they may bring upon the same . . . [and] until such Recognizance be given, such Negroes shall not be deemed free . . . [And] if any free Negroe, fit and able to work, shall neglect so to do, and loiter or misspend his or her Time, or wander from Place to Place, any two Magistrates . . . are hereby impowered and required to bind out to Service such Negroe from Year to Year.