History of the Negro Race in America from 1619 to 1880
Chapter 32 : [412] Ethiope, p. 12.[413] Bolingbroke, pp. 346-348.CHAPTER XVI.THE COLONY OF MARYLAND.

[412] Ethiope, p. 12.

[413] Bolingbroke, pp. 346-348.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE COLONY OF MARYLAND.

1634-1775.

MARYLAND UNDER THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA UNTIL 1630.--FIRST LEGISLATION ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION IN 1637-38.--SLAVERY ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE IN 1663.--THE DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY.--AN ACT Pa.s.sED ENCOURAGING THE IMPORTATION OF NEGROES AND WHITE SERVANTS IN 1671.--AN ACT LAYING AN IMPOST ON NEGROES AND WHITE SERVANTS IMPORTED INTO THE COLONY.--DUTIES IMPOSED ON RUM AND WINE.--TREATMENT OF SLAVES AND PAPISTS.--CONVICTS IMPORTED INTO THE COLONY.--AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICT-TRADE.--SPIRITED REPLIES.--THE LAWS OF 1723, 1729, 1752.--RIGHTS OF SLAVES.--NEGRO POPULATION IN 1728.--INCREASE OF SLAVERY IN 1756.--NO EFFORTS MADE TO PREVENT THE EVILS OF SLAVERY.--THE REVOLUTION NEARING.--NEW LIFE FOR THE NEGROES.

Up to the 20th of June, 1630, the territory that at present const.i.tutes the State of Maryland was included within the limits of the colony of Virginia. During that period the laws of Virginia obtained throughout the entire territory.

In 1637[414] the first a.s.sembly of the colony of Maryland agreed upon a number of bills, but they never became laws. The list is left, but nothing more. The nearest and earliest attempt at legislation on the slavery question to be found is a bill that was introduced "_for punishment of ill servants_." During the earlier years of the existence of slavery in Virginia, the term "servant" was applied to Negroes as well as to white persons. The legal distinction between slaves and servants was, "servants for a term of years,"--white persons; and "servants for life,"--Negroes. In the first place, there can be no doubt but what Negro slaves were a part of the population of this colony from its organization;[415] and, in the second place, the above-mentioned bill of 1637 for the "_punishment of ill servants_"

was intended, doubtless, to apply to Negro servants, or slaves. So few were they in number, that they were seldom referred to as "slaves." They were "servants;" and that appellation dropped out only when the growth of slavery as an inst.i.tution, and the necessity of specific legal distinction, made the Negro the only person that was suited to the condition of absolute property.

In 1638 there was a list of bills that reached a second reading, but never pa.s.sed. There was one bill "_for the liberties of the people_,"

that declared "all Christian inhabitants (slaves only excepted) to have and enjoy all such rights, liberties, immunities, privileges and free customs, within this province, as any natural born subject of England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the realm of England, by force or virtue of the common law or statute law of England, saving in such cases as the same are or may be altered or changed by the laws and ordinances of this province."[416] There is but one mention made of "slaves" in the above Act, but in none of the other Acts of 1638.

There are certain features of the Act worthy of special consideration.

The reader should keep the facts before him, that by the laws of England no Christian could be held in slavery; that in the Provincial governments the laws were made to conform with those of the home government; that, in specifying the rights of the colonists, the Provincial a.s.semblies limited the immunities and privileges conferred by the Magna Charta upon British subjects, to Christians; that Negroes were considered heathen, and, therefore, denied the blessings of the Church and State; that even where Negro slaves were baptized, it was held by the courts in the colonies, and was the law-opinion of the solicitor-general of Great Britain, that they were not _ipso facto_ free;[417] and that, where Negroes were free, they had no rights in the Church or State. So, while this law of 1638 did not say that Negroes _should_ be slaves, in designating those who were to enjoy the rights of freemen, it excludes the Negro, and thereby fixes his condition as a slave by implication. If he were not named as a freeman, it was the intention of the law-makers that he should remain a bondman,--the exception to an established rule of law.[418]

In subsequent Acts reference was made to "servants," "fugitives,"

"runaways," etc.; but the first statute in this colony establis.h.i.+ng slavery was pa.s.sed in 1663. It was "_An Act concerning negroes and other slaves_." It enacts section one:--

"All negroes or other slaves within the province, and all negroes and other slaves to be hereafter imported into the province, shall serve _durante vita_; and all children born of any negro or other slave, shall be slaves as their fathers were for the term of their lives."

Section two:--

"And forasmuch as divers freeborn _English_ women, forgetful of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation, do intermarry with negro slaves, by which also divers suits may arise, touching the issue of such women, and a great damage doth befall the master of such negroes, for preservation whereof for deterring such free-born women from such shameful matches, _be it enacted_, &c.: That whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarry with any slave, from and after the last day of the present a.s.sembly, shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married, shall be slaves as their fathers were."

Section three:--

"And be it further enacted, that all the issues of _English_, or other free-born women, that have already married negroes, shall serve the master of their parents, till they be thirty years of age and no longer."[419]

Section one is the most positive and sweeping statute we have ever seen on slavery. It fixes the term of servitude for the longest time man can claim,--the period of his earthly existence,--and dooms the children to a service from which they were to find discharge only in death. Section two was called into being on account of the intermarriage of white women with slaves. Many of these women had been indentured as servants to pay their pa.s.sage to this country, some had been sent as convicts, while still others had been apprenticed for a term of years. Some of them, however, were very worthy persons. No little confusion attended the fixing of the legal status of the issue of such marriages; and it was to deter Englishwomen from such alliances, and to determine the status of the children before the courts, that this section was pa.s.sed. Section three was clearly an _ex post facto_ law: but the public sentiment of the colony was reflected in it; and it stood, and was re-enacted in 1676.

Like Virginia, the colony of Maryland found the soil rich, and the cultivation of tobacco a profitable enterprise. The country was new, and the physical obstructions in the way of civilization numerous and formidable. Of course all could not pursue the one path that led to agriculture. Mechanic and trade folk were in great demand. Laborers were scarce, and the few that could be obtained commanded high wages.

The Negro slave's labor could be made as cheap as his master's conscience and heart were small. Cheaper labor became the cry on every hand, and the Negro was the desire of nearly all white men in the colony.[420] In 1671 the Legislature pa.s.sed "_An Act encouraging the importation of negroes and slaves into_" the colony, which was followed by another and similar Act in 1692. Two motives inspired the colony to build up the slave-trade; viz., to have more laborers, and to get something for nothing. And, as soon as Maryland was known to be a good market for slaves, the traffic increased with wonderful rapidity. Slaves soon became the bone and sinew of the working-force of the colony. They were used to till the fields, to fell the forests, to a.s.sist mechanics, and to handle light crafts along the water-courses. They were to be found in all homes of opulence and refinement; and, unfortunately, their presence in such large numbers did much to lower honorable labor in the estimation of the whites, and to enervate women in the best white society. While the colonists persuaded themselves that slavery was an inst.i.tution indispensable to the colony, its evil effects soon became apparent. It were impossible to engage the colony in the slave-trade, and escape the bad results of such an inhuman enterprise. It made men cruel and avaricious.

It was the motion of individuals to have legislative encouragement tendered the venders of human flesh and blood; but the time came when the government of the colony saw that an impost tax upon the slaves imported into the colony would not impair the trade, while it would aid the government very materially. In 1696 "_An Act laying an imposition on negroes, slaves and while persons imported_" into the colony was pa.s.sed. It is plain from the reading of the caption of the above bill, that it was intended to reach three cla.s.ses of persons; viz., Negro servants, Negro slaves, and white servants. The word "imported" means such persons as could not pay their pa.s.sage, and were therefore indentured to the master of the vessel. When they arrived, their time was hired out, if they were free, for a term of years, at so much per year;[421] but if they were slaves the buyer had to pay all claims against this species of property before he could acquire a fee simple in the slave. Some historians have too frequently misinterpreted the motive and aim of the colonial Legislatures in imposing an impost tax upon Negroes and other servants imported into their midst. The fact that the law applied to white persons does not aid in an interpretation that would credit the makers of the act with feelings of humanity. A people who could buy and sell wives did not hesitate to see in the indentured white servants property that ought to be taxed. Why not? These white servants represented so many dollars invested, or so many years of labor in prospect! So all persons imported into the colony of Maryland, "Negroes, slaves, and white persons," were taxed as any other marketable article. A swift and remorseless civilization against the stolid forces of nature made men indiscriminate and cruel in their impulses to obtain. Public sentiment had been formulated into law: the law contemplated "servants and slaves" as chattel property; and the political economists of the Province saw in this species of property rich gains for the government. It was condition, circ.u.mstances, that made the servant or slave; but at length it was nationality, color.

When, on the threshold of the eighteenth century, "white indentured"

servants were rapidly ceasing to exist under color or sanction of law, religious bigotry and ecclesiastical intolerance joined hands with the supporters of Negro slavery in a crusade[422] against the Irish Catholics. In 1704 the Legislature pa.s.sed "_An Act imposing three pence per gallon on rum and wine, brandy and spirits, and twenty s.h.i.+llings per poll for negroes, for raising a supply to defray the public charge of this province, and twenty s.h.i.+llings, per poll, on Irish servants, to prevent the importing too great a number of Irish papist into this province_." Although this Act was intended to remain on the statute-books only three years, its life was prolonged by a supplemental Act, and it disgraced the colony for twenty-one years. As in New York, so here, the government regarded the slave and Papist with feelings of hatred and fear. The former was only suited to a condition of perpetual bondage, the latter to be ostracized and driven out from before the face of the exclusive Protestants of that period.

Both were cruelly treated; one on account of his face, the other on account of his faith.

"Unfortunately for the professors of the Catholic religion, by the force of circ.u.mstances which it is not necessary to detail, their religious persuasions became identified, in the public mind, with opposition to the principles of the revolution. Their political disfranchis.e.m.e.nt was the consequence. Charles Calvert, the deposed proprietary, shared the common fate of his Catholic brethren. Sustained and protected by the crown in the enjoyment of his mere private rights, the general jealousy of Catholic power denied him the government of the province."[423]

A knowledge of the antecedents of the master-cla.s.s will aid the reader to a more accurate conception of the character of the inst.i.tution of slavery in the colony of Maryland.

It is not very pleasing for the student of history at this time to remember that the British colonies in North America received into their early life the worst poison of European society,--the criminal element. From the first the practice of transporting convicts into the colonies obtained. And, during the reign of George I., statutes were pa.s.sed "authorizing transportation as a commutation punishment for clergyable felonies." These convicts were transported by private s.h.i.+ppers, and then sold into the colony; and thus it became a gainful enterprise. From 1700 until 1760 this nefarious and pestiferous traffic greatly increased. At length it became, as already indicated, the subject of a special impost tax. Three or four hundred convicts were imported into the colony annually, and the people began to complain.[424] In "The Maryland Gazette" of the 30th of July, 1767, a writer attempted to show that the convict element was not to be despised, but was rather a desirable addition to the Province. He says,--

"I suppose that for these last thirty years, communibus annis, there have been at least 600 convicts per year imported into this province: and these have probably gone into 400 families."

After answering some objections to their importation because of the contagious diseases likely to be communicated by them, he further remarks,--

"This makes at least 400 to one, that they do no injury to the country in the way complained of: and the people's continuing to buy and receive them so constantly, shows plainly the general sense of the country about the matter; notwithstanding a few gentlemen seem so angry that convicts are imported here at all, and would, if they could, by spreading this terror, prevent the people's buying them. I confess I am one, says he, who think a young country cannot be settled, cultivated, and improved, without people of some sort: and that it is much better for the country to receive convicts than slaves. The wicked and bad amongst them, that come into this province, mostly run away to the northward; mix with their people, and pa.s.s for honest men: whilst those more innocent, and who came for very small offences, serve their times out here, behave well, and become useful people."

This attempt to justify the _convict trade_ elicited two able and spirited replies over the signatures of "Philanthropos" and "C.D."

appearing in "Green's Gazette" of 20th of August, 1767, in which the writer of the first article is handled "with the gloves off."

"His remarks [says Philanthropos] remind me of the observation of a great philosopher, who alleges that there is a certain race of men of so selfish a cast, that they would even set a neighbour's house on fire, for the convenience of roasting an egg at the blaze. That these are not the reveries of fanciful speculatists, the author now under consideration is in a great measure a proof; for who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should interfere with his little schemes of profit? And who but such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any sort eligible for peopling a young country?"

In another part of his reply he remarks,--

"In confining the indignation because of their importation to a few, and representing that the general sense of the people is in favor of this vile importation, he is guilty of the most shameful misrepresentation and the grossest calumny upon the whole province. What opinion must our mother country, and our sister colonies, entertain of our virtue, when they see it confidently a.s.serted in the Maryland Gazette, that we are fond of peopling our country with the most abandoned profligates in the universe? Is this the way to purge ourselves from that false and bitter reproach, so commonly thrown upon us, _that we are the descendants of convicts?_ As far as it has lain in my way to be acquainted with the general sentiments of the people upon this subject, I solemnly declare, that the most discerning and judicious amongst them esteem it the greatest grievance imposed upon us by our mother country."

The writer felt that a young country could not be settled "without people of some sort," and that it was better to secure "convicts than slaves." Upon what grounds precisely this defender of buying convict labor based his conclusion that he would rather have "convicts than slaves" is not known. It could not have been that he believed the convicts of England more industrious or skilful than Negro slaves? Or, had he theoretical objections to slavery as a permanent inst.i.tution?

Perhaps the writer had himself graduated from the criminal cla.s.s! But there were gentlemen who differed with him, and couched their objections to the convict system of importation in very vigorous English. On the 20th of August, 1767, two articles appeared in "Greene's Gazette." Says one of these writers,--

"For who, but a man swayed with the most sordid selfishness, would endeavor to disarm the people of all caution against such imminent danger, lest their just apprehensions should interfere with his little schemes of profit? And who but such a man would appear publicly as an advocate for the importation of felons, the scourings of jails, and the abandoned outcasts of the British nation, as a mode in any sort eligible for peopling a young country?"

There can be no doubt but that many of the convicts thus imported, having served out their time, in a brief season became slave-drivers and slave-owners. With hearts reduced to flinty hardness in the fires of unrestrained pa.s.sions, the convict element, as it became absorbed in the great free white population of the Province,[425] created a most positive sentiment in favor of a cruel code for the government of the Negro slave. There were two motives that inspired the ex-convict to cruelty to the Negro: to divert attention from himself, and to persuade himself, in his doubting mind, that the Negro was inferior to him by _nature_. It was, no doubt, a great undertaking; but the findings of such a court must have been comforting to an anxious conscience! The result can be judged. Maryland made a slave-code, which, for cruelty and general inhumanity, has no equal in the South.[426] The Maryland laws of 1715 contained, in chapter forty-four, an act with one hundred and thirty-five sections relating to Negro slaves. A most rigorous pa.s.s-system was established. By section six, no Negro or other servant was allowed to leave the county without a pa.s.s under the seal of the county in which their master resided; for which pa.s.s the slave or other servant was compelled to pay ten pounds of tobacco, or one s.h.i.+lling in money. If such persons were apprehended, a justice of the peace could impose such fines and inflict such punishment as were fixed by the law applying to runaways.

By the Act of 1723, chapter fifteen, under the caption of "_An Act to prevent the tumultuous meeting and other irregularities of negroes and other slaves_," the severity of the laws was increased tenfold.

According to section four, a Negro or other slave who had the temerity to strike a white person, was to have his ears "_cropt on order of a Justice_." Section six denies slaves the right of possession of property: they could not own cattle. Section seven gave authority to any white man to kill a Negro who resisted an attempt to arrest him; and by a supplemental Act of 1751, chapter fourteen, the owner of a slave thus killed was to be paid out of the public treasury. In 1729 an Act was pa.s.sed providing, that upon the conviction of certain crimes, Negroes and other slaves shall be not only hanged, but the body should be quartered, and exposed to public view. When slaves grew old and infirm in the service of their masters, and the latter were inspired by a desire to compliment the faithfulness of their servants by emanc.i.p.ation, the law came in and forbade manumission by the "last will or testament," or the making free in any way of Negro slaves. It was a temporary Act, pa.s.sed in 1752, void of every element of humanity; and yet it stood as the law of the colony for twenty long years.

In 1748 the Negro population of Maryland was thirty-six thousand, and still rapidly increasing.

"By a 'very accurate census,' taken this year, this was found to be the number of white inhabitants in Maryland:--

+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+ | | FREE. | SERVANTS. | CONVICTS. | TOTAL. | +---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+ |Men | 24,058 | 3,576 | 1,507 | 29,141 | |Women | 23,521 | 1,824 | 386 | 25,731 | |Boys | 26,637 | 1,048 | 67 | 27,752 | |Girls | 24,141 | 422 | 21 | 24,584 | |---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+ | | 98,357 | 6,870 | 1,981 | 107,208 | +---------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+

"By the same account the total number of mulattoes in Maryland amounted to 3,592; and the total number of Negroes, to 42,764. Pres. Stiles' MS. It was reckoned (say the authors of Univ. Hist.), that above 2,000 Negro slaves were annually imported into Maryland."[427]

In 1756 the blacks had increased to 46,225, and in 1761 to 49,675.

There was nothing in the laws to prohibit the instruction of Negroes, and yet no one dared to brave public sentiment on that point. The churches gave no attention or care to the slaves. During the first half or three-quarters of a century there was an indiscriminate mingling and marrying among the Negroes and white servants; and, although this was forbidden by rigid statutes, it went on to a considerable extent. The half-breed, or Mulatto, population increased;[428] and so did the number of free Negroes. The contact of these two elements--of slaves and convicts--was neither prudent nor healthy. The Negroes suffered from the touch of the moral contagion of this effete matter driven out of European society. Courted as rather agreeable companions by the convicts at first, the Negro slaves were at length treated worse by the ex-convicts than by the most intelligent and opulent slave-dealers in all the Province. And with no rights in the courts, incompetent to hold an office of any kind, the free Negroes were in almost as disagreeable a situation as the slaves.

From the founding of the colony of Maryland in 1632 down to the Revolutionary War, there is no record left us that any effort was ever made to cure the most glaring evils of slavery. For the Negro this was one long, starless night of oppression and outrage. No siren's voice whispered to him of a distant future, propitious and gracious to hearts almost insensible to a throb of joy, to minds unconscious of the feeblest rays of light. Being _absolute_ property, it was the right of the master to say how much food, or what quant.i.ty of clothing, his slave should have. There were no rules by which a slave could claim the privilege of ceasing from labor at the close of the day. No, the master had the same right to work his slaves after nightfall as to drive his horse morning, noon, and night. Poor clothes, rough and scanty diet, wretched quarters, overworked, neglected in body and mind, the Negroes of Maryland had a sore lot.

The Revolution was nearing. Public attention was largely occupied with the Stamp Act and preparations for hostilities. The Negro was left to toil on; and, while at this time there was no legislation sought for slavery, there was nothing done that could be considered hostile to the inst.i.tution. The Negroes hailed the mutterings of the distant thunders of revolution as the precursor of a new era to them. It did furnish an opportunity for them in Maryland to prove themselves patriots and brave soldiers. And how far their influence went to mollify public sentiment concerning them, will be considered in its appropriate place. Suffice it now to say, that cruel and hurtful, unjust and immoral, as the inst.i.tution of slavery was, it had not robbed the Negro of a lofty conception of the fundamental principles that inspired white men to resist the arrogance of England; nor did it impair his enthusiasm in the cause that gave birth to a new republic amid the shock of embattled arms.

FOOTNOTES:

[414] Dr. Abiel Holmes, in his American Annals, vol. ii. p. 5, says, "Maryland now contained about thirty-six thousand persons, of white men from sixteen years of age and upwards, and negroes male, and female from sixteen to sixty." I infer from this statement that slavery was in existence in Maryland in 1634; and I cannot find any thing in history to lead me to doubt but that slavery was born with the colony.