SLAVERY AMONG THE PURITANS.
A
L E T T E R
TO
THE REV. MOSES STUART.
BO S TON:
CHARLES C. LITTLE AND JAMES BROWN.
MDCCCL.
7V' 
(
BOSTON:
THURSTON, TORRY, AND COMPANY,
PRINTERS, DEVONSHIRE STREET. 
SLAVERY AMONG THE PURITANS.
REV. MOSES STUART.
SIR:
I OFFER no apology for directing your attention to a
passage in your Essay on the Constitution, which possibly
may convey, to those imperfectly acquainted with colonial
history, a false impression of the sentiments which were en   tertained by the Puritanical Fathers of Massachusetts on the
subject of slavery. As you have with great propriety alluded
to their views respecting it, I feel assured that you will pardon
me for suggesting any oversight, that, in the hurry of com position, may have escaped your notice; knowing full well,
that your familiarity with our annals, and your supreme
regard for truth, will effectually secure you against mistakes
arising from any other source.  Nor do I admit the necessity
of excusing myself to the descendants of those venerable
men, should the costume in which they are here presented
be different in some respects from what imagination has
sometimes cast about them.
They require no adventitious aid.  Never a set of men
more ready than they to stand the gaze of truth, and with
good reason; none had less to fear from her scrutiny. 
4
The passage in my mind occurs on page 109:
"I first address the northerners, and specially my fellow-citizens
of Massachusetts. In looking back on the history of slavery in our
country, where do we find it to have originated?   From  Great
Britain; and from her alone.  All the colonies fought pitched battles
against it; and the king and parliament of Great Britain defeated
them. North and South were united on this question; united before
the Declaration of Independence, and united for a long time after it.
I can have room to produce but one specimen of protest; and this is
from the pen of Mr. Jefferson, who originally inserted it in our Declaration of Independence which he drew up. It was omitted afterwards
merely from delicacy of feeling toward some gentlemen of the South,
(South Carolina and Georgia,) and also, as Mr. Jefferson intimates,
(3 Madison Papers,) from the same feeling toward some of the delegates from the North, who were engaged in the Guinea trade. Here
it is as it came from the hand of Mr. Jefferson. He is speaking of
the king of England:' He has waged cruel war against human
nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people, who never offended him; capturing and
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur a miserable death in the transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the
opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of a Christian king
of Great Britain. Determined to keep an open market where men
should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or control this execrable
commerce.'"
It will readily be seen that this bolt of Mr. Jefferson was
launched exclusively against the slave trade, and not against
domestic slavery as it then existed, or ever had existed in
the colonies. But, on a hasty perusal of your remarks, there
is danger lest an impression be made, that the pitched battles
to which you refer were fought by the colonies against the
admission of slavery among themselves; that it was at length
forcibly thrust upon them " from Great Britain and from her
alone; " that these efforts for its exclusion would have been
crowned with success but for the overwhelming power of the 
5
King and Parliament; in short, that slavery owed its introduction into Massachusetts Bay, and its long continuance
there, to the irresistible force of the mother country, in direct
opposition to the moral sense and professed inclinations of
the people.
I am perfectly aware that nothing was further from your
intention than the inculcation of such a belief; but as that,
or something analogous to it, is likely enough, in the present
excitement, to be embraced by some who may chance to
read without due reflection, I have attempted to ascertain and
to express as well as I could in so brief a space, what the views
and feelings, on the subject of slavery in Massachusetts, were
from the beginning of her colonial existence, until within a
very short time previous to the Revolution.
Although my remarks will be confined mainly to the inhabitants of the Bay, yet as the early settlers of Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven were imbued with the same
religious sentiments; and as a close political alliance, commencing with the earliest times, subsisted without intterruption a long while among them, creating the necessity of
constant intercourse - they will apply to all those colonies;
and with but slight modification, to all the colonies of New
England.
To understand the position which the colonists occupied
in relation to slavery, it will be necessary to call to mind
their early training; and the notions respecting personal
freedom which were prevalent in their day. Democracy of
the most rampant kind had been taught in England long
before that period. Shakspeare has handed down a specimen of it in his Jack Cade; but it had long been suppressed,
and in no sense can it be said, that democratic sentiments
prevailed in the age of Elizabeth.  Now let us for a moment
contemplate Governor Winthrop. He was a gentleman of
education and refinement; glowing with the loftiest enthusiasm to advance the cause of the Redeemer, and intent upon 
6
rescuing his persecuted brethren from what he verily believed
to be the merciless grasp of a most corrupt and intolerent
hierarchy. He was born in 1587, in the reign of Elizabeth.
At that time there were in England white men, Englishmen,
Christians, who were, and during their whole existence had
been, in a condition far enough removed from a state of
freedom, -men not reduced to that abject condition for
crime committed either by themselves or their ancestors, -
but occupying it simply because they were born to it. They
were called villeins.  I beg leave to introduce a short description of them from Rees's Cyclopedia:
"Villain or villein, villanus, in our ancient customs the same
with bondman; called also, in Domesday book, servus, slave.
"A villain is one who holds lands in villenage, or on condition of
rendering base services to his lord.
"Under the Saxon government, there was, as Sir William Temple
speaks, a sort of people in condition of downright servitude, employed
in the nost servile works, and belonging, they and their children and
effects, to the lord of the soil, like the rest of the cattle and stock
upon it. These seem to have been those who held what was called
folk land, from which they were removable at the lord's pleasure.
On the arrival of the Normans here, it seems not improbable, that
they, who were strangers to any other than the fcedal state, might
give some sparks of enfranchisement to such wretched persons as fell
to their share, by admitting them, as well as others, to the oath of
fealty, which conferred a right of protection, and raised the tenant to a
kind of state superior to downright slavery, but inferior to every other
condition. This they called villenage, and the tenants villains, either
from the word vilis, or else, as Sir Edward Coke tells us, d villa,
because they lived chiefly in villages, and were employed in rustic
work of the most sordid kind; hence they were also denominated
pagences and rustici. These villains belonging principally to lords
of manors, were either villains regardant, by the civilians called
glebce addicti or ascriptii, that is, annexed to the manor or land, or
else they were in gross or at large, that is, annexed to the person of
the lord, and transferable from one to another. They could not leave 
7
the lord without his permission; but if they ran away, or were pur.
loined from him, might be claimed and recovered by action, like
beasts or other chattels. They held, indeed, small portions of land
by way of sustaining themselves and families, but it was at the mere
will of the lord, who might dispossess them whenever he pleased; and
it was upon villain services, that is, to carry out dung, to hedge, and
ditch the lord's demesnes, and any other, the meanest offices; and
their services were not only base, but uncertain, both as to time and
quantity. A villain could acquire no property either in lands or
goods; but if he purchased either, the lord might enter upon them,
and oust the villain and seize them to his own use, unless he contrived to dispose of them again before the lord had seized them; for
the lord had then lost his opportunity. Inwmany places, also, a fine
was payable to the lord, if the villain presumed to marry his daughter
to any one without leave from the lord; and by the common law, the
lord might bring an action against the husband for thus purloining his
property; for the children of villains were in the same state of bondage with their parents, whence they were called, in Latin, nativi,
whence the female appellation of a villain, who was called neife."
Lord Campbell, in his Life of Chief Justice Dyer, says:
"It is not generally known, that, down to the reign of Elizabeth,
there were in England both' villeins in gross,' or slaves that might
be sold separately, like chattels, and'villeins regardant,' or slaves
attached to particular land, with which they were transferred along
with the trees growing upon it."
During the entire reign of Elizabeth it might have been as
much out of place to preach abolition in England as it is
now in Mississippi. No one doubted the rightfulness of villanage, and from villanage to slavery, and thence to the slave
trade the transition was easy. Bancroft says:
" The odious distinction of having first interested England in the
slave trade belongs to Sir John Hawkins. He fraudulently transported a large cargo of Africans to Hispaniola; rich returns of sugar,
ginger, and pearls, attracted the notice of Queen Elizabeth; and
when a new expedition was prepared, she was induced not only to 
8
protect, but to share in the traffic. In the accounts which Hawkins
himself gives of one of his expeditions, he relates that he set fire to
a city, of which the huts were covered with dry palm leaves, and out
of eight thousand inhabitants, succeeded in seizing two hundred and
fifty. The deliberate and self-approving frankness with which this
act of atrocity is related, and the lustre which the fame of Hawkins
acquired, display, in the strongest terms, the depravity of public sentiment in the age of Elizabeth."
In a short biographical notice of Hawkins, the writer, in
alluding to this transaction, says:
"It is the apology of our commander, that, far from its being
regarded as a stain on his humanity, he even bore the badge of these
exploits on a crest of arms granted him by patent, consisting of a
demi-moor in his proper color, bound with a cord."
Hawkins lived till 1595. Nothing more need be said to
show the feeling which prevailed at this period in England
among the masses in respect to slavery or the slave trade.
"Vi'lleinage," says Lord Campbell again, "is supposed to have
finally disappeared in the reign of James I.; but there is great difficulty in saying when it ceased to be lawful, for there has been no
statute to abolish it."
James ascended the throne in 1603, and died in 1625.
Hume places the extinction of villanage a little earlier, but
on this point, Lord Campbell is probably the better authority.
It was in the midst of such sentiments, and surrounded by
such influences, that the early exiles of Massachusetts were
educated.   Villanage had probably  been extinguished in
England before their departure; but this is not absolutely
certain. The measures by which this great revolution in
society was accomplished, have never been satisfactorily
explained. By some it is imputed to the benign spirit of
Christianity, silently operating in its legitimate sphere;
others have ascribed it to the spread of civilization, and the
advance of the arts. Even the time of disappearance is
I1 
9
a matter of debate. All this shows that the connection
between lord and villain was not in that age productive of
excitement. Among the mass of documents which the controversies that raged so furiously between the reign of Elizabeth and the commonwealth, brought out, some evidence
would exist that would conclusively fix the period of its
overthrow, if the least interest had been publicly felt on the
subject.
- Villains were held almost exclusively by persons of rank
and wealth. It was this class which had the control of
legislation. If the religious sentiment had made such progress among them as to eradicate selfishness to a degree that
would induce them, from conscientious scruples, to manumit
their bondmen, it is surpassingly strange that it should
suddenly stop there. When men, from motives purely religious, had gone so far as to break the fetters from the limbs
of their slaves, it is perfectly incomprehensible, that they
should not have seen the justice of removing the still more
galling restraints which they had themselves imposed on the
consciences of their fellow-christians. Whether they did it,
let the sons of the Puritans who glory in the appellation,
give the response. Their very presence here solves the inquiry.
All the causes that have been named doubtless conspired
to produce the result, which we now behold. A higher appreciation of Christianity; progress in the arts; improvements
in agriculture; the advancement  in civilization; all these
elements and many more were at work harmoniously, but
silently and imperceptibly, to develope a state of society in
which villanage should no longer bear a part. After a while
it was perceived on all sides that the institution was not in
accordance with other things. Men did not arrive at this
conclusion by any process of reasoning, but it obtruded itself
upon them. They saw and felt it. Instead of operating
with ease as aforetime, the institution was found to work
2 
10
cumbrously; it then became unnecessary; and finally mis chievous. Marching before these new elements, in obedience
to an irresistible impulse, the parties instinctively abandoned
such things as they no longer had occasion for; lords dropped
their villains when they became an incumbrance, some sooner,
some later, as the rising tide overtook them. Who it was that
held on to the last we have no means of knowing. The time
when the final separation took place cannot be fixed within
twenty years; in fact, the reign in which it happened is not
agreed on. But who will be at a loss hereafter to know why
and when slavery ceased in Massachusetts? Who will inquire
in vain when the slave trade was abolished by the British parliament, or when emancipation was proclaimed in the West
Indies? These dates are fixed beyond the possibility of
doubt, because, in an age of no greater religious or mental
excitement than existed in the time of which we have been
speaking, some men had come to the conclusion that slavery
was wrong, and ought to be suppressed.  Had  the same
notions prevailed respecting villanage, the circumstances attending its downfall would have been equally notorious.
But let us render justice to the early planters of Massachusetts.  Their humanity is not to be degraded to a level of
Queen Elizabeth or Sir John Hawkins. Their legislation, as
soon as they could act, displayed a benignity on the subject
of slavery as much in advance of any thing then existing
at common law, or in the rolls of parliament, as the laws
of Moses, in that respect, were superior to the polity of any
nation in his time.
Governor Winthrop with his associates, having in possession
the colonial charter, arrived at Boston in 1630. In 1641 the
people adopted a code of laws made by themselves for their
own special guidance and direction. It was drawn up by
some of their most pious and practical men, after a residence
of ten years in their adopted country, and with the light of
all the experience which they had acquired in the art of self 
11
government. Among the " LIBERTIES," and under the head
of " LIBERTIES OF FORREINERS  AND  STRANGERS" is the  following article:
"There shall never be any bond slavarie villinage or captivitie
amongst us unless it be lawfull Captives taken in just warres, and
such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And
these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law
of God established in Israell concerning such persons doeth morally
require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be Judged
thereto by Authoritie."
And under the head of "CAPITALL LAWS" is this further
article:
"If any man stealeth a man or mankind he shall surely be put to
death."
This is all too plain to admit of elucidation. They made
a distinction between buying men and stealing men, and in
their estimation, an important distinction it was, as we shall
have occasion to see. They legalized the traffic in slaves,
but prohibited kidnapping. Neither were these laws intended
to remain a dead letter. A transaction soon came up which
demanded their exercise, and the manner in which the law
was enforced, shows that the makers were in earnest. It is
related by Gov. Winthrop, and as it is valuable in exhibiting
the real state of affairs at that time, about which notions
somewhat crude now prevail, it will be inserted verbatim.
The occurrence took place in 1645.
"In beginning of the winter," says the governor, "a Portugal ship
lying at Nantascot, (now called Hull) the seamen stole diverse goats
off the Islands there. Complaint thereof being made to the governor
and council, they gave warrant to one Mr. Smith, who then lay with
his ship in the same place, to require the Portugal to give satisfaction,
or else to bring his ship up to Boston. Mr. Smith (who was a member of the church of Boston) sent one Thomas Keyser, his mate, with
his long boat well manned, to require satisfaction, who coming to the
Portugal did not reason the case with him, nor give him any time to 
12
consider, but presently boarded him, and took possession, and brought
her up, and his men fell to rifling the ship as if she had been a prize.
The Portugal being brought to the magistrates, and the theft proved,
he was ordered to make double restitution (as our manner is) and the
seamen were made to restore what they had taken out of the ship.
So the Portugal departed well satisfied.
"The said Mr. James Smith with his mate Keyser were bound to
Guinea to trade for negroes. But when they arrived there, they met
with some Londoners, with whom they consorted, and the Londoners
having been formerly injured by the natives (or at least pretending
the same) they invited them aboard one of their ships upon the Lord's
day, and such as came they kept prisoners, then they landed men and
a murderer,* and assaulted one of their towns, and killed many of the
people, but the country coming down, they were forced to retire without any booty, diverse of their men being wounded with the negroe's
arrows, and one killed. Mr. Smith having taken in wine at Madeiras,
sailed to Barbadoes to put off his wine. Being engaged there, and his
wife being there also unprovided of maintenance, and his ship and
cargo bound over unto the said Keyser, his mate, and others of Boston,
who set out the ship, Keyser refused to let any of the wines go on
shore, except he might have security for the proceeds to be returned
on ship board. So the ship lay a week in the roads, and then Keyser,
fearing that the master would use some means by other ships which
rode there, to deprive him of the cargo, told him plainly, that if he
would not come on board, and return to Boston (which was the last
port they were bound to) he would carry away the ship and leave him
behind, which accordingly he did; and arriving at Boston about midsummer, he repaired to the magistrates, and told them how he was
come away, and tendered the cargo to them, who finding that it was
engaged to himself and others, and that there would be great loss in
the wines if they were not presently disposed, delivered them to the
merchants and himself, taking bond of him to respond to Mr. Smith,
&c. A short time after, Mr. Smith came, and brought his action
against Keyser and the other mariners for bringing away his ship, and
by a jury of seamen and merchants, recovered three or four times the
value of what he was damnified, and the mate Keyser to lose not only
* A small piece of ordnance. 
13
his wages, but he and the rest of the merchants to lose the proceed or
interest, for their stock and adventure, which was forty per cent., and
all the mariners to lose their wages. But diverse of the magistrates
being unsatisfied with this verdict (perceiving that the jury in their
displeasure against Keyser, &c., did not only regard Smith's satisfaction for his damages, but also the punishment of Keyser) the defendants at the next court brought a review, and then another jury abated
much of the former damages; whereupon Smith preferred a petition
to the next General Court.
"For the matter of the negroes, whereof two were brought home,
and near one hundred slain by the confession of some of the mariners,
the magistrates took order to have these two set at liberty, and to be
sent home; but for the slaughter committed they were in great doubt
what to do in it, seeing it was in another county, and the Londoners
pretended a just revenge. So they called the elders and desired their
advice."
These proceedings excited, as they were well calculated
to, a good deal of commotion. At the next meeting of the
General Court, the following memorial was presented by
Richard Saltonstall --
" TO THE HONORED GENERAL COURT.
"The oath I took this yeare att my entrance upon the place of assistant was to this effect: That I would truly endeavour the advancement of the gospell and the good of the people of this plantation (to
the best of my skill,) dispencing justice equally and impartially (according to the laws of God and this land) in all cases wherein I act
by virtue of my place. I conceive myself called by virtue of my
place to act (according to the oath) in the case concerning the negers
taken by Captain Smith and Mr. Keser; wherein it is apparent that
Mr. Keser upon a Sabboth day gave chace to certain negers, and
upon the same day took diverse of them; and another time killed
others; and burned one of their townies. Omitting several misdemeinours which accompanied these acts above mentioned, I conceive
the acts themselves to bee directly contrary to these following laws
(all which are capitall by the word of God; and 2 of them by the
lawes of this jurisdiction.)
t 
14
"The act (or acts) of murder (whether by force or fraude) are expressly contrary both to the law of God and the law of this country.
"The act of stealing negers, or taking them by force (whether it be
considered as theft or robbery) is (as I conceive) expressly contrary
both to the law of God, and the law of this country.
"The act of chacing the negers (as aforesayde) upon the Sabboth
day (being a servile worke and such as cannot be considered under
any other heade) is expressly capitall by the law of God.
"These acts and outrages being committed where there was noe
civill government which might call them to accompt, and the persons
by whom they were committed being of our jurisdiction, I conceive
this court to be the ministers of God in this case; and therefore my
humble request is, that the several offenders may be imprisoned by
order of this Court, and brought unto their deserved censure in convenient time; and this I humbly crave, soe that the sinn they have
committed may be upon their own heads, and not upon ourselves (as
otherwise it will.)
" Yrs. in all christian observance,
"RICHARD SALTONSTALL."
It appears that this further proceeding was had in the
matter.  "Upon a petition of Richard Saltonstall, Esq. for
justice to be done on Captain Smith and Mr. Keyser for their
injurious dealings with negroes at Guinea, the petition was
granted, and ordered that Captain Smith and Mr. Keyser be
laid hold on, and committed to give answer at convenient
time thereabouts."
Now, what were the offences for which Smith and Keyser
were required to give answer thereabouts? The foregoing
memorial, which may be considered as a bill of indictment,
specifies four; viz., murder; forcible abduction or kidnapping; Sabbath breaking; and arson.
Little or no stress is laid upon the last charge, the accusation being confined to the first three. Perhaps there was no
law against arson; whereas the other acts were violations of
the colonial laws, as well as contrary to the laws of God.
The true state of the case is this: Smith, who was a
0. 
15
member of the church of Boston, his mate, Keyser, and
diverse Boston merchants fitted out a ship, bound to Guinea,
to tradefor, that is, to buy, negroes. Their object was to
engage in the slave trade as a regular business transaction.
They went about it in open daylight, without affecting the
least concealment. Why should they disguise it? In simply buying heathen, pagan negroes, there was nothing which
contravened the laws of England; nor the laws of the colony
which they had just enacted; nor was there, according to
their understanding, any thing contrary to the word of God.
For aught appears in the history of the times, Captain Smith,
who must have given satisfactory evidence of his piety,
might have craved the prayers of the church for a blessing
on his perilous undertaking. Had he adhered to his original
durpose, and confined himself to merchandizing, we probably
never should have heard of his adventure. But when he
reached the coast, instead of trading for negroes, he was
tempted. to emulate the exploits of Hawkins, who had acquired, in the same field, both wealth and renown. He
took what he deemed the shortest and cheapest method
to obtain a cargo; supposing, that as he was beyond the
jurisdiction of the colony, and interested in the enterprise
with Boston merchants, as much lenity would be extended
to him in that port as others had received in London. But
he made a mistake. Actions which, if they did not procure
Hawkins the honor of knighthood, were no obstruction to his
high advancement, in Massachusetts were treated as crimes.
We have this further record:
"14, 3d mo., 1645.  The court thought proper to write to Mr. Williams, of Piscataqua, (understanding that the negroes which Captain
Smyth brought were fraudulently and injuriously taken and brought
from Guinea by Captain Smyth's confession and the rest of the company,) that he forthwith sent the negro which he had of Captain Smyth
hither, that he may be sent home, which this court doth resolve to send
without delay. And if you have any thing to alledge why you should 
16
not return him to be disposed of by the Court, it will be expected you
should forthwith make it appear by yourself or your agent."
How the affair terminated with Smith and Keyser, I have
never seen mentioned.
It does not appear that the transaction subjected Smith to
any odium, or lessened him in the estimation of his neighbors.
In his suit against Keyser he came off triumphant, although
the wines in controversy must have been bought with the
proceeds accruing from the sale of kidnapped negroes. Besides compensating him for the loss he sustained by the conduct of Keyser, the jury evidently intended to give him smart
money; and when by review the damages were abated, instead
of hiding his head for shame, he boldly appealed to the next
General Court, which was the highest tribunal. If there was
a party arrayed against him, he evidently felt sure of a party
in his favor.
But slavery was not a new idea to our ancestors at the
time Qf this transaction. Within seven years of their landing, a war broke out with the Pequods, a numerous and
powerful tribe of Indians residing within the borders of Connecticut. The colonies were in imminent danger of being
annihilated, and it was resolved that the most energetic
measures should be adopted. The men who came to this
conclusion seldom did things at the halves; and accordingly
this once haughty race were utterly exterminated, and their
country laid desolate. It is related that about seven hundred
of them miserably perished together in their fort at Mystic.
Hot pursuit was made after those who were not involved in
the terrible calamity, and a few captives were taken. Fortyeight of them, being women and children, were spared and
brought to Boston, the men having been put to death.
These captives were disposed of through the country among
the inhabitants. Some of them ran away and were taken
and brought back by the neighboring Indians; "and those,"
says Winthrop, "we branded on the shoulder."  Of another
I 
17
lot of prisoners taken in the same war, Winthrop says, " the
women and children were divided, and some sent to Connecticut, and some to Massachusetts..... We sent fifteen
boys and two women to Bermuda by Captain Pierce, but he,
missing it, carried them to Providence Isle." The purpose
for which they were sent is clearly enough indicated, perhaps,
although not specifically mentioned. Trumbull, in his History of Connecticut, comes out with it flat-footed.   "The
people of Massachusetts sent a number of women and children to the West Indies and sold them for slaves." Here is
a whole community participating in the slave trade; the
PEOPLE of Massachusetts, acting by their constituted authorities in their sovereign capacity. A more emphatic sanction
of the practice could not be given.
It may be said in reply, that these were blood-thirsty
savages, taken in a contest of their own provoking, when the
conflict was hand to hand for very life; that harmless, inoffensive negroes would have been treated very differently.
But fgcts are opposed to this hypothesis. In 1630, when
Governor Winthrop arrived in the Bay, he found Mr. Samuel
Maverick already seated on Noddle's Island. He was a
squatter, destitute of title. In 1633, to save himself, probably, from being forcibly ejected, he purchased his land of the
colony; and being already within its limits, became subject
to its jurisdiction. As early as 1639, he was the owner of
sundry negro slaves of both sexes. It does not appear when
or where he procured them, or how long they had been in
his possession; but assuredly his course would not have been
tolerated had it been illegal, or opposed to public sentiment.
H    e   wa  s       not a Puritan, but "strong for the lordly, prelatical
power." This gave him no hold on the sympathies of those
about him. Nevertheless, he was not molested. In a community where the most stringent laws were enforced with
the utmost inflexibility against members of their own persuasion, it is not to be presumed that one of a different commu                  3
I.I I.  w           t  
18
nion, and that, too, the most obnoxious, would be treated
with greater indulgence.
In 1643, articles of agreement and confederation were
entered into between the colonies of Massachusetts Bay,
Plymouth,  New  Haven,  and  Connecticut.   The eastern
settlements, and that of Rhode Island, were excluded from
the compact on account of the laxity of their religious opinions.  They go on to say:
"It is also by these confederates agreed, that the charge of all just
wars, whether offensive or defensive,.... shall, both in men and
provisions, and other disbursements, be borne by all the parts of this
confederation in different proportions, according to their different
abilities;......and that according to the different charge  of
each jurisdiction and plantation, the whole advantage of the war (if
it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands,
goods, or persons, shall be proportionably divided among the said
confederates."
This was not intended to be an idle display of rhetoric,
but Was reduced to practice upon the first occasion.
In 1676, the conflict known as Philip's War was brought
to a close; and the savages, after a most fierce and sanguinary contest, were completely defeated. In disposing of the
prisoners, which was an affair of state, "a great many of the
chiefs were executed at Boston and Plymouth, and most of
the rest were sold, and shipped for slaves to Bermudas and
other parts." The purpose for which the clause touching
the advantage to be derived from persons, was inserted in
the foregoing compact, is now apparent. The benefit was
in this way made available, and was shared by every member
of the body politic.
The Plymouth people, the same year, passed a law that
no male Indian captive, over fourteen years of age, should
be allowed to remain in the colony; all persons who had
such captives were required to send them out of the colony
by the first day of December then next ensuing; and every 
19
Indian coming within the purview of the act, who should be
found within the jurisdiction after that day, was to be seized
by proper officers and sold for the. benefit of the colony: an
exception, however, was made in favor of five or six Indians
to whom Captain Church had pledged his word, that if they
behaved themselves well, they should not be sold intoforraign parts.
In the same year (1676) Major Waldron, at Cocheco, in
concert with some Massachusetts forces under Capt. Syll
and Capt. Hawthorne, succeeded by stratagem in capturing,
in a time of peace, about two hundred Indians, who had
taken sides with Philip in the late war., They were sent to
Boston.  " Seven or eight, who were known to have killed
Englishmen, were condemned and hanged; the rest were
sold into slavery in foreign parts."- Mather relates the exploit, with great satisfaction. These prisoners, having been
captured by the public forces, must have been sold on public
account.
The articles of confederation, before referred to, contain
another provision, which shows that our ancestors were not
exempt from the troubles that infest the community at the
present time; although the remedy was then applied in
much better temper than is displayed by their descendants.
It runs thus:
"It is also agreed that if any servant run away from his master into
any of these confederate jurisdictions, that in such case, upon certificate
of one magistrate in the jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled,
or upon other due proof, the said servant shall be delivered either to
his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or
proof."
Slavery continued to flourish in New England, and negroes
were introduced. Josselyn, who spent ten years in the
country, (from 1663 to 1673,) says in relation to the people
of Boston: " They have great store of children, and are well
accommodated with servants; some of these are English and 
20
others negroes." On this passage, Dr. Belknap remarks that
they had negro slaves.
It is estimated that in 1680 there were in Massachusetts
from one hundred to one hundred and twenty negro slaves.
In the same year, there were in Connecticut about thirtyseven.
It is said that but few blacks were at this time imported
into Rhode Island.
The colonial charter of Massachusetts was annulled in
1684. Previous to that time, the political affairs of the colony had been administered with as much regard to public
sentiment as they have been since the declaration of independence. The governor, assistants, and deputies were as
much chosen by the freemen as the governor, senators, and
representatives are now.   The  principal, if not the only
difference, lay in the fact, that suffrage, instead of being universal, was restricted to church members, who alone could
exercise the right. These were the men who admitted slavery in the first place, and without whose concurrence it could
not have survived a single day. They had the power to
repeal the law by which it was established; a power they
would not have been slow to exercise, had they thought its
tendencies immoral or anti-scriptural. Had the owners proved
contumacious, they could have been dealt with by a process
as effective as that employed against Quakers, and Antinomians, and Anabaptists. Very many years afterwards, and in
altered circumstances, under the provincial charter, efforts
were made to that effect, and the royal governors interposed
their vetos. It is to governors appointed by the crown that
Mr. Jefferson alludes. His remarks have no application to
governors who had been chosen by the people.  But those
who had the direction of affairs under the first charter could
have had no suspicion that slavery was wrong. In the
gloomy times that immediately preceded the extinction of
the charter, when their fears had been excited by a horrid 
21
meteor that hung in the air; while they were yet bemoaning the effects of a most cruel and bloody Indian war; when
an inclement season had blighted the hopes of the husbandman, and an arbitrary and venal government in England
threatened them with the loss of all those privileges which
they had made such sacrifices to obtain -then they humbled themselves as they were accustomed to do in seasons of
adversity, and sought, by a thorough reformation, to propitiate the divine favor. They called to mind their manifold
transgressions and bewailed their short-comings. An enumeration of their offences, which is still on record, would
occupy more space than we can afford. Among them, and
standing in a conspicuous position, is' pride in wearing
men's hair like women's hair;" " Quaker meetings;" "profaneness in persons turning their backs upon the public
worship before the blessing is pronounced;" "a loose and
sinful custom of riding from town to town, men and women
together, under the pretence of going to lectures." These
and many other things were held up as constituting the
crying sins of the day; but in the long list of evils that
was exhibited, so they might be shunned and repented of,
slavery no where finds a place.
"It is apparent," says Mr. Coffin in his History of Newbury, "that
slaves though not numerous in Massachusetts, were, notwithstanding
the law, introduced without difficulty, and bought and sold without
scruple by all classes of the people."
I am not aware of the existence in early times of any law
against slavery.  If there was one, which was violated by all
classes without scruple, the fact shows pretty clearly the state
of public sentiment.
The first voice against slavery appears to have been uttered
May 26, 1701, when
"The representatives of Boston were desired to promote the encouraging of the bringing of white servants, and to put a period to negroes
being slaves." 
22
But by whom this request was made, or on what account,
or with what success, does not appear.
There were many prudential and economical considerations
which might have been urged for suppressing negro slavery.
We are not by any means bound, in the absence of proof, to
presume that this slight movement, which was not repeated,
had its origin in conscientious scruples.
"The winter here," says Dr. Belknap, "was always unfavorable
to the African constitution. For this reason white laborers are preferable to blacks; and as whites were more numerous, there was not
much encouragement to the importation of blacks, nor were they ever
so prolific as the whites."
In the early settlement of Georgia slavery was excluded.
The reasons are said to have been partly politic and partly
humane. This argument among others was used:
"It is necessary not to permit slaves in such a country, for slaves
starve the poor laborer. For if a gentleman can have his work done
by a slave, who is a carpenter or bricklayer, the carpenters and bricklayers of the country must starve for want of employment; and so of
other trades."
But had the Boston representatives prevailed, it is far from
certain that much would have been gained in Massachusetts
on the score of humanity. What would have prevented the
same scenes from being repeated here that were enacted in
Virginia?
"Conditional servitude under indentures or covenants," says Bancroft, "had from the first prevailed in Virginia....... The supply of white servants became a regular business; and a class of men,
nicknamed spirits, used to delude young persons, servants and idlers
into embarking for America as a land of spontaneous plenty. White
servants came to be a usual article of traffic. They were sold in
England to be transported, and in Virginia, were resold to the highest
bidder; like negroes, they were purchased on ship board, as men buy
horses at a fair." 
This was done in old Virginia, the birth-place of Mr. Jefferson, where so much anxiety was exhibited, according to his
representation, to suppress the slave trade.
Grahame says, "A provincial law enacted in 1712 prohibited the importation of slaves into Massachusetts." If the
statement be correct, which I have no means at hand to verify, the law was soon repealed, or at any rate disregarded.
Dr. Belknap, who was an ardent whig of the revolution,
writing from Boston in 1795, says:
"By inquiries which I have made of our oldest merchants now
living, I cannot find that more than three ships a year belonging to this
port were ever employed in the African trade....... The slaves
purchased in Africa were chiefly sold in the West Indies, or in the
SOUTHERN COLONIES; but when these markets were glutted and the
price low, some of them were brought hither....... I remember
one between thirty and forty years ago, which consisted almost wholly
of children."
Dr. Belknap, who was an abolitionist as the term was then
understood, as well as a whig, says that reflecting persons
were divided in their opinions on the lawfulness of slavery.
Yet with all his knowledge of men and things as they existed
an hundred years ago, and with his extensive and critical
researches into colonial antiquities, he was able to name but
one person, who publicly protested against it. That individual was the venerable Samuel Sewall, Chief Justice of
the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and one of the Judges,
who occupied the bench during the trial of the Salem witches; and with whose concurrence nineteen persons were hanged,
and one, for refusing to plead, pressed to death. This gentleman, about 1716, published a pamphlet in condemnation of
slavery; in which he was doubtless as sincere as he was in
giving his assent to the aforesaid judgments. Mr. Coffin, the
indefatigable historian of Newbury, says there was one other
person who bore public testimony against the practice, Elihu
Coleman of Nantucket. He concedes, that " excepting these
23 
24
two persons, there appears to have been no public advocate
for the slave in Massachusetts, till a short time prior to the
revolution."
With one exception, slavery was universal throughout the
British Colonies. In the province of Georgia, for a short time
after its settlement, slavery was prohibited. In Massachusetts
the social condition of the slave was as low as in any part of
the country. Judge Sewall says, in his Diary in 1716, "I
essayed to prevent Negroes and Indians from being rated with
horses and cattle, and could not succeed."
Previous to this time their condition had awakened the
sympathy of another philanthropist. Cotton Mather had at
his own expense set up a school in Boston, where the negroes
were taught to read. Some time afterwards, recording in his
Diary the trials and afflictions to which he was subjected, he
notices his efforts in behalf of the negroes. His exertions do
not appear to have been taken so kindly as they were meant.
Among his " Dark Dispensations," it is related that "many,
on purpose to affront him, affix his name, Cotton Mather, to
the young negroes, so that if any mischief is done by them,
the credit of it comes upon him." The whites did not deem
it necessary that the blacks should learn to read, and they felt
no gratitude towards one who attempted to teach them.
There was no display of public sentiment against slavery
in Massachusetts until a short time previous to the revolution.
The Rev. W. B. O. Peabody, in his Life of Cotton Mather,
says:
"One of the subjects mentioned in Cotton Mather's Diary is slavery,
which, even as matter of history, is so completely forgotten in New
England, that when he speaks of buying slaves, as he does more than
once, he seems like the inhabitant of another country. He says that
in 1706 he received a singular blessing. Some gentlemen of his
society, having heard, accidentally, that he was in want of a good
servant, had the generosity to purchase for him'a very likely slave,'
at an expense of forty or fifty pounds. He describes him as a negro 
23
This was done in old Virginia, the birth-place of Mr. Jefferson, where so much anxiety was exhibited, according to his
representation, to suppress the slave trade.
Grahame says, "A provincial law enacted in 1712 prohibited the importation of slaves into Massachusetts." If the
statement be correct, which I have no means at hand to verify, the law was soon repealed, or at any rate disregarded.
Dr. Belknap, who was an ardent whig of the revolution,
writing from Boston in 1795, says:
"By inquiries which I have made of our oldest merchants now
living, I cannot find that more than three ships a year belonging to this
port were ever employed in the African trade....... The slaves
purchased in Africa were chiefly sold in the West Indies, or in the
SOUTHERN COLONIES; but when these markets were glutted and the
price low, some of them were brought hither....... I remember
one between thirty and forty years ago, which consisted almost wholly
of children."
Dr. Belknap, who was an abolitionist as the term was then
understood, as well as a whig, says that reflecting persons
were divided in their opinions on the lawfulness of slavery.
Yet with all his knowledge of men and things as they existed
an hundred years ago, and with his extensive and critical
researches into colonial antiquities, he was able to name but
one person, who publicly protested against it. That individual was the venerable Samuel Sewall, Chief Justice of
the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and one of the Judges,
who occupied the bench during the trial of the Salem witches; and with whose concurrence nineteen persons were hanged,
and one, for refusing to plead, pressed to death. This gentleman, about 1716, published a pamphlet in condemnation of
slavery; in which he was doubtless as sincere as he was in
giving his assent to the aforesaid judgments. Mr. Coffin, the
indefatigable historian of Newbury, says there was one other
person who bore public testimony against the practice, Elihu
Coleman of Nantucket. He concedes, that "excepting these 
25
of promising aspect and temper, and says that such a present was' a
mighty mighty smile of Heaven upon his family."'
Dr. Colman, in a funeral sermon preached on account of
his death, which happened in 1728, described him as "the
first minister in the town; the first in age, in gifts, in grace;
the first in all the provinces of New England for universal
literature and extensive services."
The statement in your essay that Jonathan Edwards wrote
a vindication of the slave trade, is to the point. There is a
tradition that he was a slave owner. He was born in 1703.
Besides these distinguished and venerable men we may introduce the Rev. Dr. Stiles, who was President of Yale College.
He was a settled minister in Newport, R. I., when the revolutionary war broke out. During his residence there, being
in want of a servant, he sent a barrel of rum by a slave ship
to the coast of Africa to be exchanged for a negro boy; and
one was actually procured and brought home to him. It is
fair to state that his views afterwards underwent a change;
but he is introduced merely for the purpose of showing what
the sentiments of New England, upon slavery, were at a given
period of our history. These men, whose names have just
been mentioned, were not only the most distinguished of their
day, but they were all of them sons of distinguished clergymen. They must all have been educated in the sentiments
and feelings which prevailed among the clergy at that period.
A whimsical bequest is noticed by Coffin, in his instructive
and amusing history. Richard Dole, by his will, in 1698,
gives to one of his children:
"My great bible, fowling-piece, musket, and also my negro boy,
Tom."-" In 1716, Rice Edwards, of Newbury, sells to Edward
Greenleaf his whole personal estate, with all his goods and chattels,
as also one negro man, one cow, three pigs, with timber, plank, and
boards."
But the inhabitants of New England did not expend all
their  energies in one direction.  "They had both their do                   4 
26
mestic and their foreign slave trade, and dealt in Indians as
well as negroes."   Many  of the slaves in Massachusetts
were Indians imported from the South. Thus, in 1708,
Thomas Steele sells to John Farnum, of Boston, for thirtyfive pounds, an Indian boy, called Harry, imported from the
province of South Carolina. In 1725, Theophilus Cotton,
of Hampton, deeds to Jonathan Poore, of Newbury, "all my
indian boy Sippai, aged about sixteen." And as early as 1646,
December 29th, William Hilton, of Newbury, sells to George
Carr, for one quarter of a vessel, "James, my indian, with all
the interest I have in him, to be his servant forever." And
earlier still, Governor Winthrop himself, after having given in
his last will his "island, called the Governor's Garden," to
his son Adam, proceeds, -" I give him also my  indians
there and my boat and such household as is there." Possibly these were some of the Pequods which had been branded
on the shoulder.
It is a mistake to suppose that our forefathers, who came
to establish a religious commonwealth on these inhospitable
shores, were imbued with many of the notions that constitute so large a portion of the stock in trade of a modern
philanthropist. They were not Teetotallers, nor Non-resistants, nor Abolitionists. A careful and diligent perusal of the
Bible, which they cherished with so much solicitude as the
only rule of faith and practice, had never revealed to their
understandings, that they were required, at their peril, to
subscribe to any of those dogmas.   On  the contrary, they
were valiant soldiers, temperate drinkers, and humane masters. Among them were found the Standishes, the Masons,
and the Churches of colonial times. From the same stock
sprung the Putnams, and the Starks, and the Prescotts, of the
colonial wars and the revolution. Their sympathies extend ed to the sufferer as well as to the felon. In their legislation
they clearly defined the crime and the penalty; and the
moral suasion they made use of was very cogent, though 
"Every man whether Inhabitant or frorreiner, free or not free,
shall have libertie to come into any publique Court, councel, or
Towne meeting, and either by speech or writing to move any lawful,
seasonable, or material question, or to present any necessary motion,
complaint, petition, Bill, or information, whereof that meeting hath
proper cognizance, so it be done in proper time, due order, and
respective manner." And further, "If any servants shall flee from
the Tiranny and crueltie of their masters to the howse of any freeman
of the same Towne, they shall be then protected and susteyned until
due order be taken for their relife."
But the time at length arrived, when the ties that had so
long connected the white and colored races in Massachusetts
were to be severed. The process by which this was effected
affords an interesting subject of contemplation; and fortunately we have a ftlill description of it from one who was
every way qualified for the task.
In 1795, Judge Tucker, of Virginia, addressed a letter to
Dr. Belknap, then a minister in Boston, in which were propounded sundry inquiries in relation to slavery as it had
existed in Massachusetts. He requested, among other things,
to be informed by what process slavery had been abolished,
and when the event took place. By no possibility could his
application have been made to an individual better able to
impart the information.
The correspondence is published in the fourth volume of
Coll Mass  l-ist.Soc.
In his reply, which is very full and explicit, the Doctor
says that " Slavery hath  been abolished here  by  public
opinion, which began to be established about thirty years
ago."  In another place, he refers the commencement of this
public opinion to "the beginning of our controversy with
Great Britain." He goes on to state that
"Not much was said in a public and formal manner, till we began
to feel the weight of oppression from' our mother country,' as Britain
was then called. The inconsistency of pleading for our own rights
28
0 
29
and liberties whilst we encouraged the subjugation of others, was very
apparent; andfrom that time both slavery and the slave trade began
to be discountenanced. The principal cause was public opinion, and
the present generation, at an early stage of life, imbibed that opinion,
which has grown with their growth, and strengthened with their
strength."  "At the beginning of our controversy with Great Britain,
several persons, who before had entertained sentiments opposed to
slavery of the blacks, did then take occasion publicly to remonstrate
against the inconsistency of contending for our own liberty, and at the
same time depriving other people of theirs."....     ". "The controversy began about the year 1766, and was renewed, at various times,
till 1773, when it was warmly agitated, and became a subject of
forensic disputation at the public commencement in Harvard College."
In 1767, an attempt was made in the legislature to discourage the slave trade, but the measure, through a disagreement between the two houses, failed before it was sufficiently matured to be presented to the governor. This was the
first step in the series, that was ostensibly made with a view
to effect the object.   Various moves, from time  to time,
were afterwards made on the board without success; and
then the revolution intervened, and suspended for a long
period all further operations. It may appear invidious to
raise the inquiry even, whether the master spirits of the day
were really in earnest to see their project succeed. It was a
rousing subject for declamation, and one that offered a most
inviting field for the display of their eloquence. It gave
them an opportunity to show, that, in their aspirations after
liberty, they were not exclusively selfish, but were willing to
share the boon with the most helpless of their species. As
the governor probably had instructions to resist all demands
for popular rights, they were thus always prepared with a
topic that would command the attention of their audience,
and enlist the sympathies of the public. These remarks are
made without a design to cast the least reproach on the
memory of those illustrious patriots; or to detract an iota 
from their claims upon our gratitude. A purer, and at the
same time, a more sagacious set of men, was probably never
selected to wield the destinies of a people. But they are
suggested by the circumstances to which the measure finally
owed its consummation, and the great length of time that
was suffered to elapse after all extraneous opposition to it was
removed.
The war of the revolution had been fought; the revolt of
the colonies had been successful; the people of Massachusetts had obtained complete mastery over their affairs,
untrammeled by royal governors or mandamus councillors;
and still the slave trade  was not suppressed.   Had the
people become indifferent to the crime, which formerly so
much excited their indignation, or were their representatives
chosen fresh, year by year, from every walk of life, alone
blind to the signs of the times, and deaf to the importunities
of their constituents? Such is not usually the course pursued
by public servants towards those, whom, with profound humility,'no doubt, they delight to call their masters.
To solve this inquiry, recourse must be again had to
Dr. Belknap, who was an eye-witness of the proceedings he
describes, and one of the principal promoters, if not the originator of the scheme. He tells all how the statute for suppressing the slave trade was brought about; and the relation
will be given in his own words. He proceeds:
" In the month of February 1788, just after the adoption of the
present Federal Constitution by the. Convention of Massachusetts, a
most flagrant violation of the laws of society and humanity was perpetrated in this town (Boston) by one Avery, a native of Connecticut.
By the assistance of another infamous fellow, he decoyed three unsuspecting black men on board a vessel, which he had chartered, and
sent them down into the hold to work. Whilst they were there employed, the vessel came to sail, and went to sea, having previously
cleared out for Martinico...... The public indignation being
greatly excited against the actors in this affair, and against others who
30 
31
had been concerned in the traffic in slaves, it was thought proper to
take advantage of the ferment and bring good out of evil.
"Accordingly the Association of the Boston Clergy originated a
petition to the legislature, praying for an act to prohibit the equipping
and insuring vessels bound to Africa for slaves, and providing against
carrying innocent blacks from home. The petition was circulated and
signed by a great number of our reputable citizens. The blacks were
urged to present a similar petition, which they did; and fortunately
another of the same kind from the Society of Quakers, presented at
a former session, was then lying on the table. All these were brought
up together; and the effect was an Act passed March 26, 1788,'to
prevent the slave trade, and for granting relief to families of such unhappy persons as may be kidnapped or decoyed away from this Commonwealth."'
It will be borne in mind, that this proceeding was two and
twenty years after the struggle is said to have commenced;
some twelve years after the last vestige of British authority
had vanished from the Old Bay State; and eight years after
the citizens of the same had been in the full fruition of all
the blessings which flow from a government of the most
popular cast, under the guarantee of a constitution, the fundamental article of which was that "All men are born free and
equal."
And yet, what a vast combination of machinery was brought
into play, to destroy a practice, which the sovereign people,
we are taught, had time out of mind regarded with unmitigated disgust and abhorrence. All the aid that could be drawn
from the venerable and reverend Clergy of Boston, from the
Negroes, the Quakers, and a great number of reputable citizens, was concentrated to a focus on this memorable occasion.
It is extremely questionable whether such an array has ever
been presented, before or since, in our halls of legislation.
Nor does it conclusively appear that all this would have been
sufficient for their purpose, without the help of an entirely
unexpected, but most appropriate event that was enough to
excite the indignation of a stoic. It is certain that the efforts 
of the Quakers alone were unavailing. Dr. Belknap recounts
the transaction with the air of a man who has accomplished
a most difficult undertaking; not simply by urging the intrinsic merits of the measure upon those having the disposal of
it, but by the exercise of consummate tact and address. Not
a word escapes him expressive of impatience at the tardiness
of the movement. He is rejoiced that the thing is done at
last.
We have thus been told how both slavery and the slave
trade were banished from Massachusetts. Some have supposed that the abolition of sleavry was owing to the religious
element which constitutes the essence of Puritanism. Dr.
Belknap, who was an eye-witness of the whole proceeding, and,
moreover, a clergyman, gives no such intimation. He ascribes
it mainly,-if not entirely, to political causes. In writing an account of the movement to which his attention had been particularly called, misrepresentation could only have been the result
of deliberate fraud. Furthermore, if religious feeling was the
moving cause, it would be evidence that piety existed in a
more exalted state between 1766 and 1788 than at any former
period. There is nothing to sustain such an opinion. During
the intellectual struggle that preceded the appeal to arms, the
pulpit, as a rule, responded to the voice of the people. The
clergy, with but few exceptions, were whig. The value of
their services was inestimable. But from what has been said
of Dr. Edwards and Dr. Stiles, it is apparent that the conversion of a vast many of them to the side of abolition must have
been by a process extremely expeditious.
If the charge be true, that Mr. Jefferson has brought against
some of the Northern delegates in the Continental Congress,
which proclaimed the Declaration of Independence, that while
discharging the functions pertaining to that patriotic undertaking they were even then engaged in the Guinea trade; it will
readily be conceded that a great portion of the labor which
has been bestowed on this performance might have been
32
I 
33
spared. The accusation, to be sure, is vague and indefinite.
It is not fixed upon any individual, nor upon any colony.
We only know that by the North is meant New England,
inasmuch as the epithet is never applied to territories west of
the Hlludson. But the whole New England people in those
days were animated by the same spirit; and a rumor of this
sort, if true, or even supported on probable testimony, must
have been known to the whole community. By the choice
of men, therefore, lying under such an imputation, the people
declared most distinctly, that if not engaged in the slave
trade themselves, they were not disposed to sake a fuss
about it.
It is time calmly to inquire, whether, at this day, we clearly
understand and correctly appreciate the sentiments of SEVENTYSix on the subject of slavery; and particularly the views of
those who established the Constitution upon that clause which
now exercises such an absorbing interest; the clause providing
for the surrender of fugitive slaves. Any thing illustrative of
the opinions which those who framed that instrument entertained upon those points will be read with interest. There
is one piece of documentary evidence existing among the
statutes of Massachusetts, that, viewed in this light, is valuable.
The Constitution of the United States was ratified in Massachusetts by the Convention assembled for that purpose, on
the sixth day of February, 17SS88. In less than two months
after that joyful event, viz., on the twenty-sixth day of March
following, the General Court passed the law which has just
been described for suppressing the slave trade; and on the
same day, be it remarked, they passed another Act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds, and other idle
and lewd persons, the sixth section of which reads as follows:
"Be it further enacted........That no person being an African
or Negro, other than a subject of the Emperor of Morocco or a citi                  5 
34
zen of some one of the United States, (to be evidenced by a certificate
from the Secretary of the State of which he shall be a citizen,) shall
tarry within this Commonwealth for a longer time than two months;
and upon complaint made to any Justice of the Peace within this Cornmonwealth that any such person has been within the same more than
two months, the said Justice shall order the said person to depart out
of this Commonwealth; and in case the said African or negro shall
not depart as aforesaid, any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made, that such person has continued
in this Commonwealth ten days after notice given him or her to depart
as aforesaid, shall commit said person to any house of correction
within the County, there to be kept at hard labor agreeably to the
rules and orders of said house, until the Sessions of the Peace next
to be holden within and for said County; and the master of said house
of correction is hereby required and directed to transmit an attested
copy of the warrant of commitment to the said Court on the first day
of the session; and if upon trial at said Court it shall be made to
appear that the said person has continued within the Commonwealth
contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of this Commonwealth
within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process shall be had and the same punishment inflicted, and so toties
quoties."
The constitution had just been ratified, and the circumstances attending it were fresh in the recollection of all men.
The contest upon it had been arduous, and the vote, by
which it was finally adopted, was a close one; yet when the
deed was done, no person dreamed of resisting it. There was
to be no evasion. The legislature not only intended to stand
by the article, and see it executed when circumstances should
demand it, but they went further, and attempted to remove
all inducements for a slave to come here, by making the place
beforehand too hot for him. Massachusetts meant to act with
perfect good faith, and, as far as in her lay, to avoid all collision. For although entirely free herself, she was bounded
on two sides at least by slave States. It was long after before slavery subsided in New York;  and it may be news to 
35
some, that New Hampshire at that time held men  in vassalage. The often quoted letter of Dr. Belknap must serve us
again. The doctor says:
The  present constitution of Massachusetts was  established  in
1 80.   The first article of the declaration of rights, asserts that' all
men  are born free and equal.'.... This was inserted, not merely
as a moral or political truth, but with a particular view to establish
the liberation of the negroes, and so it was understood by the people
at large; but some doubted whether it was sufficient.....  The
State of New Hampshire established their constitution in 1783, and
in the first article of the declaration of rights, it is asserted that' all
mnen are born equally free and independent.' The construction there
put on this clause is, that all who are born since the constitution, are
free, but those who were in slavery before, are not liberated by it.
By reason of this construction (which, by the way, I do not intend to
vindicate,) the blacks in that State are in the late census distinguished
into free and slaves, there being no Indians residing within those
limits."
So much for a contemporaneous exposition of apparently
synonymous phrases.
You, sir, are not without fears that St. Paul, were he to
reappear, might meet with rough usage at the hands of some
calling themselves Christians, for the part he felt himself constrained by the Holy Ghost to take on this exciting subject;
and particularly for sending a runaway back to his master.
Of what punishment would they be adjudged worthy, who
were engaged in promoting the law, the sixth section of the act
which has just been quoted, were they to come again in the
flesh? What man, who has the least desire to bask in the
sunshine of popular favor, would dare to mount the stump in
their behalf? And yet, it was passed by a senate, of which
Samuel Adams was president, and approved by his Excellency, John Hancock: of all the world, just the two men,
the extravagance of whose devotion to liberty had rendered
them so preeminently obnoxious to the British authorities,
that they alone were excepted from the amnesty which Gern. 
36
Gage on certain conditions proffered to all besides.   There
are symptoms, which render it not improbable, that their
offence might now, as then, be deemed "of too flagitious a
nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment."   It is also worthy of remark, that Hancock, at this particular moment, owed his elevation to the
chair principally to the impression, that in consequence of
his inflexible attachment to the people, he would exercise
greater lenity towards the infatuated insurgents, who, under
Shays had been involved in an unsuccessful rebellion, than
they could expect from his opponent, Governor Bowdoin,
who was looked upon as the advocate of more stringent
measures. It cannot be supposed, that so experienced a pilot
as Hancock, with his eye on such a political horizon, would
have tolerated the least encroachment upon what was regarded as popular rights, or was known to exist in the popular wish.
In connection with the subject, it cannot be deemed impertinelt to notice the proceedings of the Congregational
Ministers of Massachusetts, as detailed in a Report presented
Mlay 30, 1849. At their meeting, in 1848, this venerable
body, on motion of a most highly respectable member, appointed a committee to prepare a report which should contain
"' A brief History of the Rise and Progress of Slavery in our
Country." In accordance with this resolution, a committee
of ten was raised, and the report was the fruit of their labors.
Having a year before them to mature their plans, the report
was prepared with great deliberation.  It appears by the
record, that the report itself was not presented to the meeting; but an abstract, purporting to contain all its essential
features was read and adopted with but one dissenting vote.
The report has been printed and circulated as an expression
of the views entertained by the convention; and I have seen
no notice that it does not represent, in a satisfactory manner,
the sentiments of the individual members. We are author 
ized, therefore, to look upon it as an official statement of the
views which the Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts
entertain of Slavery.
On the fifty-seventh page of the document, is the follow
ing paragraph, which is quoted entire:
"They are familiar facts, that when Thomas Keyson (or Kezar)
and James Smith imported a number of slaves into Massachusetts, in
1645, the citizens of Boston denounced them, and all others engaged
in the same traffic, as' malefactors and murderers;' committed them
to prison; bore public testimony against' the heinous crime of manstealing;' and ordered the negroes to be restored, at the public
charge, to their native country, - the General Court at the same
time, by letter, expressing their indignation at their wrongs; also,
that in 1652, the General Court of Rhode Island passed a well-considered law to this effect:' That no black mankind, or white being,
shall be forced by covenant, bond, or otherwise, to serve any man, or
his assigns, longer than ten years;' and that the man that will not
let them go free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to the end that
they may be enslaved to others a longer time, he or they shall forfeit
to the Colony forty pounds.' And equally familiar is the melancholy
fact, that these honorable movements of the Fathers of New England,
two centuries ago, were thwarted and overruled by the covetousness
and despotic authority of the mother country. Their wise enactments
were set aside, and their consciences and rights subjected to the will
of an unjust foreign government."
Now what impression is this language naturally calculated
to make? What impression did the writer himself intend that
it should make? Why, manifestly, that in 1645, " the citizens
of Boston" had their indignation aroused in consequence of
the importation " of a number of slaves." This is the gist of
it, so far as Smith and Keyser are concerned. But the peculiarities of the transaction, on account of which the people
were exasperated, and which alone caused the determination
to restore them to their native country, are wholly unnoticed.
No allusion is made to the distinction created by law between
buying men and stealing men. For aught that appears in the
37 
38
document, the whole excitement was raised by the attempt to
bring negroes here in the condition of slaves; and that it had
no reference to the mode by which they had been obtained.
Whether this is a fair and impartial exhibition of the entire
proceeding, and worthy of the distinguished source whence
it emanated, the history of the transaction already cited will
enable the reader to decide. He will be struck by the
thought, whether the account is marked by that appearance
of candor which we always expect from the gown? Is it
truthful, or, from some cause or other, is it not altogether
disingenuous?
And what are we to infer from the notice taken in the
Report of the law of 1652, concerning "black mankind," in
Rhode Island? The most obvious meaning is, that the freemen of that colony were opposed to perpetual vassalage; and
that the law limiting its duration would have remained in
force during the whole term of their colonial dependence, but
for the "covetousness and despotic authority" of the metropolitan government. If this is not the import of the two last
sentences in the quotation, it is difficult to elicit one.
Providence was founded in 1636. Every body has heard
of Roger Williams and his persecutions. He began his settlement, and set up a government by purchasing his land of
the natives without any charter from the crown. In 1644
Williams went to England, and there prevailed on "both
houses of parliament to grant unto him and his friends with
him, a free and absolute charter of civil government for the
parts of his abode."   "Thus," says Bancroft, "were  the
places of refuge for'soul liberty' on the Narragansett Bay
incorporated'with full power and authority to rule themselves.'" Things proceeded in this way until the Restoration.
In 1663 Charles II. conferred a royal charter on Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations. Bancroft, speaking of the charter of Connecticut, granted in:1662, says, "It conferred on
the colonists unqualified power to govern themselves."  And
I 
39
in relation to the Rhode Island charter, just referred to, he
says, it "was at length perfected, and, with new principles,
embodied all that had been granted to Connecticut." Then,
as if no longer able to contain himself, he breaks out into the
following encomiastic strains:
"This charter of government, constituting, as it then seemed, a
pure democracy, and establishing a political system which few beside
the Rhode Islanders themselves believed to be practicable, is still in
existence, and is the oldest constitutional charter, now valid, in the
world. It has outlived the principles of Clarendon and the policy of
Charles II. The probable population of Rhode Island, at the time of
its reception, may have been twenty-five hundred. In one hundred
and seventy years that number has increased forty fold; and the government, which was hardly thought to contain checks enough on the
power of the people, to endure even among shepherds and farmers,
protects a dense population, and the accumulations of a widely extended commerce. Nowhere in the world have life, liberty, and property, been safer than in Rhode Island."
This ~as chanted no longer ago than 1837.
We have all heard how Newport was built up, and of THE
COMMERCE from which she derived her wealth.  Who can
doubt the truth of the rumors after reading the anecdote of
Dr. Stiles, which is given on the authority of President Wayland. If they are true, the time was when it might have
been said of Newport, as a distinguished tragedian in one of
his rhapsodies is reported to have said to an audience in Liverpool, "Every brick in your houses is cemented by the
blood of slaves."
Except the encroachment of Andros from 1686 to 1689,
Rhode Island never had any thing in the shape of a royal
governor from beginning to end.
It must be apparent, that the Report is the production of
one whose ideas were in great confusion, and consequently
that he is sometimes obscure. Not to cavil about verbal inaccuracies, what will be thought of a clergyman who  desig 
40
nates what he terms the "Mother Country" as a "Foreign
Government." If Great Britain was foreign in respect to the
Colonies, the Colonies must have stood in the same relation
to her.   But on the authority of Webster's Dictionary,
"We call every country foreign, which is not within the
jurisdiction  of  our  own  government."   The  Colonies
were within and under the jurisdiction of Great Britain
till the revolution. Their emancipation from British supremacy was the revolution.
The foregoing extract affords a fair specimen of the logical
acumen and historical accuracy which pervades the Report.
The writer was evidently letting off steam.
In conclusion, it is not improper to say a word about the
Quakers. A foggy sort of notion is beginning to prevail,
that from their origin, at any rate, from their settlement in
this country, under William Penn, they have, as a denomination, been opposed to slavery. This position, if true, would
only prove, that among many wild and visionary theories,
which distinguish them as a sect, they adopted that of abolition.  But the notion is not true.   Opposition to slavery
sprung up among them at a comparatively recent date. William Penn lived and died a slave owner. There is a letter
on record from T. Matlack to William Findley, which gives
an account of the rise and progress of this idea among them.
Mr. Matlack, who, when he wrote, was an aged Friend,
says:
" The practice of slave keeping in Pennsylvania and New Jersey
commenced with the first settlement of the Province, and certainly
was countenanced by William Penn.......Penn left a family
of slaves behind him......... Slave keeping of course became
general among Friends."
The earliest instance of emancipation among them known
to Mr. Matlack, took place in 1742. It was not till eight or
ten years after, that the yearly meeting began to lean in favor
of the IC oppressed African." 
41
In regard to the improvement of the negroes, Penn attempted to legislate, not for the. abolition of slavery, but for
the sanctity of marriage among the slaves, and for their personal safety.
There is no more reason to suppose that George Fox was
an abolitionist, than that Governor Winthrop was.   They
were brought up in the same notions respecting villanage,
and so doubtless was John Locke. What those views were
will pretty distinctly appear from the following extract from
Grahame:
"Negro slavery lingered long in the settlements of the Puritans in
New England, and of the Quakers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania;
although in none of these States did the climate, or the soil or its appropriate culture, suggest the same temptations to this inhumanity,
which presented themselves in the southern quarters of America. Las
Casas, so distinguished for the warmth of his philanthropy, first suggested its introduction into Mexico and Peru; George Fox, the most
intrepid and enthusiastic of reformers, demanded no more of his followers tlhan a mitigation of its rigors in Barbadoes; and the illustrious
philosopher, John Locke, renowned also as the champion of religious
and political freedom, introduced an express sanction of it into the
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina."
The clause which Locke introduced into the Fundamental
Constitutions of Carolina, is this:
"Every freeman shall have absolute power and authority over his
negro slave, of what opinion or religion soever."
These sentiments of Locke did not lower him in the eyes
of our ancestors. As evidence of the estimation in which
his writings were held by the most zealous and enlightened
avocates for liberty at the time when the flame was brightest,
the opinion of no one could be introduced which is entitled
to greater weight than that of Josiah Quincy, Jr. In the
last will of that pure and spotless patriot, who fell a martyr
to the cause no less than Warren, the following clause oc
curs:
6 
42
"I give to my son, when he shall arrive at the age of fifteen years,
Algernon Sidney's Works, JOIIN LOCKE'S Works, Lord Bacon's Works,
Gordon's Tacitus, and Cato's Letters. May the Spirit of Liberty rest
upon him!"
In the foregoing pages, an attempt has been made to show
how far the establishment of slavery in Massachusetts was
owing to the direct interference of the British government.
One extract more from the oft quoted letter of Dr. Belknap
will explain how far it was due to the proceedings of foreign
or European merchants. Judge Tucker, in his searching
examination, puts the following inquiry: "Whether  it (the
slave trade) was carried on by European or American adventurers? " Dr. Belknap, in his reply, says:
"I do not find that European adventurers had any other concern
here than to procure cargoes of our rum to assist them in carrying on
their business."
AMICUS.